Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

All Hallows Lombard Street Bill, Read the Third time, and passed.

London and North Eastern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRAINING, DERBYSHIRE.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons registered for employment in the county of Derbyshire are undergoing training; and at what centres they are being trained?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman attempt to secure this information?

Mr. Brown: I will have a look again, but the statistics are not given in this form.

DISTRESSED AREAS.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour when the legislation dealing with distressed areas, other than the Special Areas, will be introduced?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) on 28th March by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the anxiety felt on this matter, could we not have some definite information?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question after Easter.

MEN OVER 55.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to state what is the proportion of men over 55 years of age who have been taken on by the contractors who have got contracts to do Government work for the Air Ministry; and will he give separate figures for the works in progress at Chorley, Lancashire?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to get these statistics because the information is that men over 55 years of age are not being employed by the contractors?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will understand that this work is not done through the Employment Exchange, and I shall have to ask for a return from each contractor.

Mr. Tinker: The Prime Minister said that inquiries were being made into this matter, and that the Government are trying to deal with it. How can we deal with this matter unless we get the information?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows that I have always done my best to oblige hon. Members who ask for any information.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman obtain information as to the number of persons over 55 years of age who have been placed in work?

Mr. Brown: We have not the information in that form, and it will mean an analysis of every case in which a man has been placed, but I will see whether the information can be obtained. As hon. Members know, I attach importance to this aspect of the problem.

DETERMINATIONS.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that applicants to the Unemployment Assistance Board are now receiving determinations showing reduced allowances, and that in many cases these determinations are back-dated so that the time-limit for appeal against determination is already passed when the notice of reduction is received;


and will he cause provision to be made to allow of appeals being lodged where the applicant can provide evidence that his notice was received after the statutory time-limit for appealing?

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The time limit of 14 days within which appeals from determinations must be lodged commences from the date on which the notification is issued to the applicant and not from the date on which the form was prepared in the Board's office. This position is clearly stated on the prescribed form notifying applicants of the determination and of their rights of appeal.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the applicants are also under a misapprehension, and that it is necessary the matter should be made clear?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member's question will, no doubt, serve that purpose.

TRANSFERENCE.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons under the ages of 18 years who have been transferred from distressed areas to the Borough of Southwark for the 12 months ended the last convenient date; and whether employment has been found for these persons?

Mr. E. Brown: As I explained in reply to a question put by the hon. Member on 8th December, 1938, particulars with regard to the number of persons transferred to the Borough of Southwark are not available. During the calendar year 1938, 2,443 persons under the age of 18 years were transferred to the Metropolitan area with assistance under the Industrial Transference Scheme, all of whom were placed in employment.

Mr. Day: Has the right hon. Gentleman any record to show the number of persons transferred and whether warrants are given those who become unemployed?

Mr. Brown: We follow the normal practice.

APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE, DUNDEE.

Mr. Dingle Foot: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the action of the Unemployment

Assistance Board in the case of Mrs. Rose Ann Brown, who was granted a decree of separation and aliment against her husband, on 16th November, 1938; that thereafter the Unemployment Assistance Board took the view that she was not a person whose needs could be taken into account in determining the allowance payable to her husband; that Mrs. Brown has in consequence been compelled to have recourse to public assistance; whether his attention has been called to the opinion recently expressed by the sheriff-substitute of Dundee on the construction of Section 38, Sub-section2, of the Unemployment Act, 1934; and what action he proposes to take to deal with grievances of this sort?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member refers. I understand that by arrangement between the local authority concerned and the solicitor acting for Mrs. Brown, the case was adjourned sine die without judgment being pronounced. I understand that the sheriff-substitute did make certain comments on the functions and powers of the Board, but that in so doing he expressly stated that he had no jurisdiction in that matter. The Unemployment Assistance Act leaves to the appeal tribunals set up under that Act the final decision on any question as to the proper allowance to be paid to an applicant. In the circumstances, I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

Mr. Foot: In view of the importance of the questions raised, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest convenient date after the Easter Recess?

COUNTY DURHAM.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the acting president of the Miners Federation stated in evidence before a recent meeting of the Royal Commission on Compensation, that the County of Durham was paying large sums to maintain unemployed men who were proper subjects for the Unemployment Assistance Board; and whether he will investigate this matter with a view to relieving this authority of such financial burden?

Mr. E. Brown: I have heard that such a statement was made, but am not prepared to accept it. The Durham public assistance authority is well aware of its


right to appeal against decisions of the Board's officers that the Unemployment Assistance Act does not apply to applicants for allowances.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to confer with public authorities on this matter in view of the large sums which are being paid to unemployed men in this way?

Mr. Brown: I received a large deputation on which, I think, the Durham authorities were represented, but it was a long time ago.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is asserted that there are people who are unemployed and who are not seeking assistance. That is the general charge, but this is a particular case in which they are prepared to give the names of the people concerned. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to investigate the matter?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a further question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour who will represent His Majesty's Government at the forthcoming meeting of the governing body of the International Labour Organisation?

Mr. E. Brown: His Majesty's Government's representative on the governing body is Mr. F. W. Leggett, and he will attend the next meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCE).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health the total outstanding debt of all local authorities in the United Kingdom for 1938; the annual charges for interest and capital redemption; and what percentage do these two items, respectively, represent to the total average rate burden of the local authorities in the United Kingdom for the year 1938?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: In view of the importance of this matter, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider appointing a Royal Commission to consider the whole basis of local taxation?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think that arises out of the question.

Following is the answer:

The gross outstanding loan debt of all local authorities in England and Wales at the end of 1936–37, the latest year for which figures are available, was approximately £1,481,000,000; of this sum about £1,062,000,000 related to trading undertakings and housing, which to a large extent are productive services. The total amount of the loan charges included in the revenue accounts for 1936 –37 of local authorities in England and Wales was about £100,710,000 of which £57,740,000 represented payments of interest (including income tax thereon) and £42,970,000 the aggregate of repayments of principal and payments into sinking funds. These loan charges were met out of the general revenue income of the authorities for 1936 –37 which amounted in the aggregate to £503,090,000 and was made up of £172,837,000 from rates, £135,575,000 from Government grants and £194,678,000 from receipts of the authorities' trading undertakings, rents of houses, fees and miscellaneous items of income. The sums of £57,740,000 and £42,970,000 were equivalent to 11.4 per cent. and 8.5 per cent. respectively of the general revenue income. As regards Scotland and Northern Ireland, I would refer by hon. Friend to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Home Affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH (WALES).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the need for closer supervision of the work of local authorities in Wales, as recommended in the report of the Committee on Anti-Tuberculosis Services in Wales, he proposes to examine the constitution and powers of the Welsh Board of Health so as to invest it with the authority necessary adequately to fulfil its duties?

Mr. Elliot: The report of the Committee on Anti-Tuberculosis Services in Wales is now receiving consideration.
The Welsh Board of Health has, in relation to transferred functions, the same powers in Wales as the Ministry of Health has in relation to similar functions in England. I do not think, therefore, that the Welsh Board lacks authority to fulfil its duties.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it desirable to review the position of the Welsh Board of Health?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, that will be done.

Mr. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to consider the revision of the existing local authorities in Wales, including the desirability of creating authorities whose financial resources will be equal to the duties imposed upon them; and whether consideration will be given to this aspect of the problem at the conference he proposes to hold in Wales to consider the report of the anti-tuberculosis services?

Mr. Elliot: This aspect of the matter is one on which the local authorities, whose views on the report are being sought, will doubtless have comments to make, and their views thereon will certainly be considered when a conference is arranged.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to organise the provision of a medical service for the civilian population in time of emergency?

Mr. Elliot: The emergency hospital service is described in a published memorandum, a copy of which I will send to the hon. Member, and the medical arrangements under the Government evacuation scheme will be dealt with in memoranda to be issued by the Board of Education and my Department. Arrangements for securing the most suitable distribution of the doctors available are being made by the Central Emergency Committee of the British Medical Association.

Mr. Henderson: Is it a fact that the emergency committee on evacuation are considering schemes for voluntary hospitals; and when may we expect action to be taken?

Mr. Elliot: A scheme exists already on paper and it is being improved as consideration is given to it. It can be brought into existence forthwith.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the Manchester district parents are being asked to decide before 28th April whether they wish their children to be evacuated in the event of war; whether this is being done everywhere; and whether parents who delay reply or reply in the negative will be allowed to reconsider their decision later?

Mr. Elliot: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that the rate of delivery of steel shelters by the London and North Eastern Railway Company in areas within the danger zone is only about 50 per cent. of the rate at which it was estimated that they would be delivered; and can he do anything to speed up the rate of delivery?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I am not aware that any official estimate has been given of the appropriate rate of delivery of steel shelters to any particular area. The rate of distribution is governed by a number of factors and has been increased from 15,125 shelters distributed during the week ending the 25th February, to 42,310 last week. Arrangements have been made for a still further acceleration of the weekly rate of distribution.

Mr. McEntee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Walthamstow, when inquiries were made by the local authority, they were told that they might expect 300 a day, and that in fact they have got 150 a day?

Sir J. Anderson: Various factors have to be taken into consideration, but we hope in future to arrange for delivery in Walthamstow at the rate of 300 a day.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of complaints concerning the delay in the delivery of the shelters, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of the steel-sheet works in West Wales, capable of producing shelters, which are not working at all?

Sir J. Anderson: All the arrangements are being organised on a mass-production


basis, and the rates of delivery that have been secured are, I think, very impressive, and they have certainly been in excess of the estimates originally given. Certainly, I shall take pleasure in going into the possibility of increasing the rate of supply.

Mr. McEntee: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in Walthamstow — and no doubt in other places — men were taken on for the fixing of these shelters, and the men's time is being largely wasted because the shelters are not there?

Sir J. Anderson: I will look into that.

Mr. F. Anderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any test of capacity is applied to recruits for service in the various units of Air-Raid Precautions; and what qualifications are required from chief air-wardens to justify their supervision over trained persons?

Sir J. Anderson: No specific standards of capacity for recruits to the Air-Raid Precautions Services have been prescribed; but it has been impressed on local authorities in Air-Raid Precautions Memorandum No. 4 that Air-Raid Wardens should be fitted both by temperament and character for the duties which they would be called on to perform, and in particular that the selection of a suitable person for the responsible post of chief warden is a matter of great importance.

Mr. Anderson: Is it not the case that the chief factor, generally speaking, is education, and ought not experience to come first? As an illustration, people who are dealing with fire services are in some cases school masters who have no technical knowledge, and men who are trained engineers are put in a secondary position. Ought not people who have experience to have the chief jobs?

Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid that the hon. Member has given information rather than asked a question. I am most anxious that the right people should be selected.

Mr. Mabane: Is it not a fact that the qualifications necessary for air-raid wardens are rather organisational than otherwise, and is it not better that those who have been in the service from the first should be given the first opportunity of higher posts?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that personality is one of the most important things.

Mr.Anderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal what standard of quality is required from the suppliers of clothing and equipment for the Auxiliary Fire Service units?

Sir J. Anderson: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the specifications.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has held experiments to test the safety of deep bomb-proof shelters, and, if so, with what result?

Sir J. Anderson: The factors involved in the design of such structures have been for some time past the subject of exhaustive investigation, both experimental and theoretical. I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which I expect to be in a position to make shortly after the Easter Recess on the whole subject of heavily protected shelter.

Mr. H. G. Williams: May I ask whether those investigations also include investigations into the engineering difficulties of constructing such shelters, particularly in water-bearing strata as exist in many parts of the Metropolis?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many Lancashire local authorities still remain to be issued fully with Air-Raid Precautions trainee equipment, including service respirators and protective clothing?

Sir J. Anderson: All applications for training equipment received from Lancashire have been met, with the exception of minor instructional items which are being issued as supplies become available. Instalments of mobilisation stocks of personal protective equipment, such as respirators and protective clothing, which are also available for training, are issued from time to time as supplies are received from contractors.

Mr.Pilkington: asked the Lord Privy Seal the number of Air-Raid Precautions volunteers needed in each category in Widness, Prescot, Huyton, and the rest of the Widnes area, respectively; and how many volunteers have already been enrolled?

Sir J. Anderson: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon.


Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that it is not possible to furnish information with

Air Raid Precautions Personnel as on 18th March, 1939.


 Widnes.


—
Establishment.
Volunteers Enrolled.





Men.
Women.
Total.
Men.
Women.
Total.


Wardens
…
…
419
105
524
704
129
833


First Aid Parties
…
…
140
—
140
153
153
306


First Aid Posts*
…
…
25
128
153
152
151
303


Ambulances and Cars
…
…
—
168
168
154
154
308


Rescue and Demolition
…
…
88
—
88
196
—
196


Decontamination
…
…
35
—
35
89
—
89


Report and Control Centre †
…
…
32
43
75
8
5
13


Messengers
…
…
64
—
64
—
—
—


Auxiliary Fire Service
…
…
285
—
285
156
—
156

Prescot.


Wardens
…
…
111
28
139
209
52
261


First Aid Parties
…
…
40
—
40
28
17
45


First Aid Posts*
…
…
7
34
41
11
5
16


Ambulance and Cars
…
…
—
48
48
15
15
30


Rescue and Demolition
…
…
28
—
28
39
—
39


Decontamination
…
…
7
—
7
12
—
12


Report and Control Centre †
…
…
8
11
19
9
21
30


Messengers
…
…
16
—
16
—
—
—


Auxiliary Fire Service
…
…
54
—
54
45
—
45

Huyton.


Wardens
…
…
220
54
274
495
202
697


First Aid Parties
…
…
70
—
70
27
74
101


First Aid Posts*
…
…
12
66
78
23
76
99


Ambulances and Cars
…
…
—
81
81
20
70
90


Rescue and Demolition
…
…
46
—
46
57
—
57


Decontamination
…
…
21
—
21
58
—
58


Report and Control Centre †
…
…
17
22
39
88
56
144


Messengers
…
…
34
—
34
—
—
—


Auxiliary Fire Service
…
…
287
—
287
108
—
108


*Under Ministry of Health control.


† Establishment under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAZI ORGANISATIONS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he, in the interests of national security, will consider the advisability of cancelling permits to reside in this country of members of the German secret police, the Gestapo, and other Nazi organisations?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): As has

regard to the district described by my hon. Friend as "the rest of the Widnes area."

Following is the statement:

been previously stated, careful attention is given to the activities in this country of these organisations, with a view to appropriate action when such action is called for, and within recent weeks steps have been taken with a view to terminating the residence in this country of three persons connected with these organisations.

Mr. Mander: May I take it that the Home Secretary will continue to watch


closely the activities of these persons and take such action as may be necessary from time to time?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there any reason to believe that there are still members of the Gestapo residing in this country?

Sir S. Hoare: That is a different question.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is the question on the Paper?

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask in what capacity —

Mr. Shinwell: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks whether there are members of this organisation still residing in this country, and the question on the Paper is whether the Home Secretary will consider the advisability of cancelling permits?

Mr. Shinwell: It is impossible, I submit, to consider the question of cancelling permits unless these people do reside here. Can we have any information on that matter?

Sir S. Hoare: I have answered the question on the Paper with, I gathered, the general assent and approval of the House.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the case that was referred to him on Tuesday by the Thames Police Court stipendiary about the Gestapo agents and the Nazi factory owners; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Sir S. Hoare: My attention has been drawn to the case and I am calling for a report.

Mr. Bellenger: Have any of these Gestapo agents diplomatic immunity in this country?

Sir S. Hoare: The answer is "no."

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. hon. Gentleman be willing to close down the headquarters of the Gestapo in Belgrave Square?

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give particulars of the number of members of the Metropolitan Police force who were suspended, dismissed, or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Sir S. Hoare: During the period 1st April, 1938, to 31st March, 1939, 68 officers were suspended; 16 officers were dismissed and 18 officers were required to resign as an alternative to dismissal.

Mr. Day: Has the Minister any record of the number of appeals made to him under the Police Appeals Act, 1927?

Sir S. Hoare: I have not got the figures here.

Mr. Day: Has the right hon. Gentleman got the number of appeals dismissed by him?

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPS ACTS (PROSECUTIONS, EALING).

Mr. Ridley: asked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions were undertaken in the borough of Ealing under those provisions of the Shops Acts which relate to hours of employment and meal intervals for assistants during the years 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938?

Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that no prosecutions were undertaken in the borough of Ealing under the provisions referred to in 1935 or 1936; the number in 1937 was three, and in 1938, one.

Mr. Ridley: Does that information justify the House in assuming that these powers are not being used sufficiently by local authorities, including the local authority referred to in the question?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I would not draw that conclusion from the figures. I have had no complaints from the neighhourhood on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIAN SUBJECTS (VISA).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary whether he will reconsider the case of Mr. and Mrs. Jacques Hofer, of Vienna, applied for by Captain Battle Hancock as domestic servants, which application was granted by the Home


Office and the visa authorised, but the consular authorities at Vienna refused the visa on the ground that the couple were over 50 years of age, a fact already known to the Home Office when they granted the application?

Sir S. Hoare: As the result of representations made to me by Mr. Hofer's son-in-law, I have caused further inquiries to be made, and I am informed that a visa has now been granted.

Oral Answers to Questions — STOLEN MILK BOTTLES.

Mr. David Grenfell: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the police court proceedings at Bridgend, where a milk vendor was fined for being in possession of milk bottles bearing a false trade description, in which the Co-operative Wholesale Society's foreman at Llanharan testified to the loss of 180,000 bottles last year; and whether he will take steps to prevent this traffic in stolen bottles?

Sir S. Hoare: My attention had not previously been drawn to this case, but I have no doubt that the police are on the look-out for offences of this nature and will take appropriate action in cases which come to their notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE.

Mr.Henderson Stewart: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that the staffs of banks in Scotland have received no indication from their employers as to whether their enrolment in Territorial or Air-Raid Precautions service is encouraged; that, as a result, considerable misunderstanding exists among such staffs and recruiting is handicapped; and whether he will consult with the head quarters of the various banks with a view to securing a clear ruling on the matter?

Sir J. Anderson: I have made inquiries into this matter, and I cannot find any grounds for thinking that such misunderstanding exists. None of the Scottish banks has placed any obstacle in the way of any of their staff volunteering for National Service, and I am advised that in the case of one bank, for example, there are to-day seven times as many members of their staff in the Territorials

as there were 12 months ago. Appeals for recruits have in some instances been received from the Commanding Officers of Territorial Units, and these have been circulated to the appropriate branches of the banks, and where meetings of the staff have been suggested, every facility has been given.

Mr. Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that within the last few days the facts set out in my letter have been confirmed to me by bank clerks and local branch managers of banks in Scotland, and that it is at their direct request that I have asked this question?

Sir J. Anderson: The information I have just given was supplied by the Treasurer of the Bank of Scotland, who acts as chairman of the monthly meeting of managers of Scottish banks. I will see that what my hon. Friend has just said is brought to his notice.

Mr. Mathers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the comparative numbers where the numbers are seven times what they were a year ago?

Sir J Anderson: I cannot reply to that question without notice.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether civil engineers, being members of a reserved occupation, will be allowed, in the event of war, to apply for admission to the non-commissioned or commissioned ranks of the Royal Engineers?

Sir J. Anderson: The provisional schedule of reserved occupations which has been published relates solely to peacetime recruitment. I am unable to make any statement about the application of such a schedule to recruitment in time of war.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE (INTEREST RATES).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what rate the Government were able to borrow on both long and short terms in the years 1932, 1935, 1937, and 1938; and further, is it the policy of the Government in the future to maintain cheap money rates?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): As the answer to the first part of the question contains a number of


figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In reply to the second part of the question, no change in policy is in contemplation.

Following is the answer to the first part of the question:

The yields (including redemption) on Government borrowings, other than Treasury Bills, during the years in question were as follow:

1932.
£
s.
d.


3 per cent. Treasury Bonds 1933–42
*3
9
11


2 per cent. Treasury Bonds 1935–38
2
0
0


3 per cent. Conversion Loan 1948–53
3
3
5


1935.


1 per cent. Treasury Bonds 1939–41
1
7
1


2½ per cent. Funding Loan 1956–61
2
13
2


1937.


2½ per cent. National Defence Bonds 1944–48
*2
10
6


1938.


3 per cent. National Defence Loan 1954 –58
3
2
4


* In these cases annual drawings were provided for and an average life has been assumed. In all other cases the yields are calculated to the latest redemption date.

The average rates of interest of Treasury Bills issued by tender in the years in question were as follow

s.
d.


1932
…
…
…
…
17
8


1935
…
…
…
…
11
6


1937
…
…
…
…
11
2


1938
…
…
…
…
12
5

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR RISKS (COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE).

Mr. Day: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now has any further statement to make on behalf of the Government relative to the insurance on a national basis of property against the risks of air bombardment; and when it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to deal with this subject?

Sir J. Simon: In reply to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the statements which I have already made on this subject. As regards legislation, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave on my behalf to my hon. Friend the

Member for South-West St. Pancras (Sir G. Mitcheson) on 13th March, 1939.

Mr. Day: Is the Minister aware that the Government's inaction is causing very detrimental effects upon transactions in property?

Sir J. Simon: If the statement which I made is carefully looked into, it will be found to state the position clearly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AGREEMENT).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for the publication of the hitherto unpublished annex to Article 18 of the Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, specifying more precisely what variation in the rate of exchange either contracting party would consider substantial?

Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that any unpublished annex of the kind referred to exists.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask whether the Government are satisfied that the present high level of the pound sterling in the foreign exchange market is advantageous to export trade?

Sir J. Simon: I think my hon. Friend must have intended to put that supplementary on an earlier question

MILLING INDUSTRY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give an assurance that the Government are not taking part in the absorption and control of many of the large bakery combines, negotiations for which are at present taking place by certain large milling interests in this country?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I know nothing of any such negotiations between milling interests and bakeries.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not the case that negotiations are now going on with the Food Council; and is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Royal Commission on Food Prices determined that there should be an inquiry, in view


of the known existence of these price-fixing associations, and are not the Board of Trade fully aware of the fact that these price-fixing associations constitute a real menace to the public?

Mr. Stanley: The question which I was asked was whether the Government were taking part in any particular negotiations, and I have answered that I do not know of any negotiations.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not the case that the Food Council have a direct connection with this matter; and will the right hon. Gentleman urge upon the Food Council the necessity to inquire) and to intervene, if it is in the interests of the public that there should be inquiry and intervention?

SHIPBUILDING.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the shipping subsidy, it is proposed that, so far as may be reasonably possible, all materials, fittings, and machinery supplied in connection with new ships shall be of United Kingdom or Empire origin?

Mr. Stanley: I regard it as important that shipbuilders who secure orders by reason of the proposals which I announced last week should use British materials so far as they possibly can; and I am asking the Shipbuilding Conference to impress this on the shipbuilders who may receive such orders.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that a prohibition of this kind should become operative, irrespective of the class of material required; and does he not regard a prohibition of this kind as likely to add to the difficulties of shipowners and shipbuilders in this country?

Mr. Stanley: It is not a question of prohibition. Both the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) in his question and I, in my answer, limited the reference to the use of British materials "as far as possible" and that is a question on which, I think, the whole House is agreed.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that both shipbuilders and shipowners have made representations to his Department that the price of materials

is high and adds to the difficulties of shipowners in giving orders for new tonnage, and that any kind of prohibition or restriction on the importation of raw materials will add further to the cost?

Mr. Stanley: There is no kind of prohibition or restriction. The hon. Gentleman had better read my answer. It is to the effect that, wherever possible, they should use British materials, and I am sure that the whole House and shipbuilders and shipowners all agree with that.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Have the Government taken into consideration imposing a tariff on foreign-built ships, built with cheap labour for British owners?

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements have been or will be made for securing the use of the unexpended portion of the £8,000,000 grant in aid of refugees from Czecho-Slovakia for the temporary maintenance as well as the ultimate migration of those refugees for whom the voluntary funds are unable to take full responsibility?

Sir J. Simon: A statement on this subject will be made during the course of to-day's Debate, and I would ask the hon. Member to await this statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD RESERVES (MINISTER).

Sir Arthur Salter: asked the Prime Minister whether he is arranging for the primary responsibility for policy as to food reserves to be assigned to a Minister in charge of a department dealing with the subject in the same way that a primary responsibility for the number of battleships, aeroplanes, or units of the Army is assigned to Departmental Ministers?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): While I do not altogether accept the analogy suggested in the latter half of the hon. Member's question, I have reached the conclusion that primary responsibility for policy as to food reserves should rest with the Minister in charge of the Department which carries out that policy. I propose to take the opportunity to relieve in some measure the very heavy burden


which now rests on my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and to make arrangements whereby responsibility for the Food (Defence Plans) Department will be taken over by another Minister. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has agreed to take over this duty.

Mr. Bellenger: Does that statement mean that the plans for the distribution of food, now under the control of the Board of Trade, will be taken over by the new Minister?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPINSTERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Financed Secretary to the Treasury whether the committee appointed to consider the question of spinsters pensions have yet presented their report; and, if not, whether he will ask the committee to expedite their labours with a view to the publication of the report without further delay?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): Yes, Sir. The committee have now presented their report and I hope to arrange for its publication at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS UNDERTAKING, MORLEY (PROPOSED TRANSFER).

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information in connection with the application to the Board of Trade of the West Yorkshire Gas-Grid Company to purchase the Morley municipal gas works for £80,000; what is the area of the gas-grid system and the population coming within its scope before and after the agreement; and whether any compensation is proposed to be paid to the workpeople who will be put out of work?

Mr. Stanley: The Drighlington and Gildersome Gaslight Company which, it is understood, is controlled by the West Yorkshire Gas Distribution Company, have applied to the Board of Trade for a Special Order under the Gas Under-takings Acts, 1920 to 1934, to authorise ,inter alia, the transfer to the first-mentioned company of the gas undertaking of the Morley Corporation. This

application has not yet been fully considered by the board, but it is noted that the proposed consideration for the transfer is £87,000, together with an undertaking that subordinate employees of the Morley Corporation employed in the undertaking on the transfer day shall be taken over by the company on their existing terms and conditions of service and remuneration and that the company will continue to pay the gratuities now paid by the corporation to former employeés of the undertaking. It is also noted that provision is made for compensation in the event of pecuniary losses by employés taken over. The districts in which the West Yorkshire Gas Distribution Company are authorised to supply gas are set out in the Schedule to the West Yorkshire Gas Distribution Act, 1938, and these will not be affected by the proposed Order. I am not aware of the area or population of these districts.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (POSTAGE STAMPS).

Mr. Leonard: asked the Postmaster-General whether his Department has yet received, through the International Union or otherwise, a listing catalogue showing the new stamps of Greater Germany and, including as such, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Memel, and Danzig; and what was the date of issue of such catalogue?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): Information was contained in a circular letter dated 20th April, 1938, from the International Bureau of the Postal Union at Berne, regarding a stamp stated to have been issued by Germany on the occasion of the plebiscite of 10th April on the union of Austria and Germany; and in a further circular letter dated 22nd December, 1938, regarding two stamps stated to have been issued by Germany in commemoration of the in-corporation of Sudeten German territory. The notifications in each case were issued some time after the events to which the-stamps relate. No further information has been received.

Mr. Mander: Is there any foundation for the statement that Germany has issued stamps showing Danzig incorporated in the Reich?

Major Tryon: I have had no information whatever to that effect, but clearly that does not arise from the question.

Mr. Leonard: Will matters of this kind be taken into account as an indication of Germany's intentions in the future and be given recognition by the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the report on the workings of the British North America Act recently tabled in the Canadian Senate, which recommends that the British Parliament should pass an interpretative statute declaring the true intent of the Act, and what action His Majesty's Government propose to take.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have seen a statement in the Press that the report in question was tabled in the Canadian Senate on 28th March. So far as I am aware, the report has not yet been considered by the Canadian Government or Parliament and pending such consideration no question arises of action on the part of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

WATER SUPPLIES (RURAL AREAS).

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory and unhealthy conditions in regard to water supplies existing in the Frew area of Perthshire, where water is drawn from the River Forth; that certain farmers in this area have either been refused or are liable to have with-drawn certificates of registration under the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, solely because of the unsatisfactory water supplies; and whether he is prepared to make any special grant or concession to enable the local authority or other appropriate body to institute and maintain a water supply in accordance with modern health and hygiene standards and suitable for the conduct of dairy fanning?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I am aware that on account of the unsatisfactory water supply, two proposals to begin dairy farming in the Frew area may have to be abandoned. While there is no statutory duty on the county council to provide a supply of water for agricultural

purposes, they have had the general needs of this area under consideration but have not yet been able to find a satisfactory source of supply. A grant offered in 1934 is still available if suitable arrangements can be made by the council.

Mr. Snadden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this area the question of the water supply has been under consideration for five or six years but that nothing has been done about it; and will he make special inquiries into the matter?

Mr. Wedderburn: The county council did submit a water supply scheme in 1934 providing for the purchase of water from Stirling Burgh and the laying of the necessary pipes. The Department offered a grant of £3,600 towards the cost of laying the pipes and the purchase of the water.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make upon his reply to the appeal addressed to him on 7th March by a sub-committee of the County Councils Association with regard to the urgent need of improved water and drainage supplies in rural areas of Scotland, and the necessity for Exchequer assistance to make such improvements possible?

Mr. Wedderburn: Scottish county councils are at present making a survey of their water supply and drainage requirements. As my right hon. Friend indicated to the representatives of their association whom he met on 7th March, he hopes that they will carry on with the surveys, of which only nine had then been completed, so that there may be available a complete picture of the requirements in each area.

Mr. Mathers: Are the county councils being given any assistance to carry through these surveys, as there is bound to be a certain amount of expense involved?

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think we are giving them any financial assistance.

Mr. Leonard: Is it not the case that questions have already been directed to the Department and have displayed an adequate picture of the need in this matter?

Mr. Wedderburn: There are a great many things that we want to find out —


the needs and the practicability of getting them supplied, the cost and the rateable value of each area.

Mr. Mathers: In view of the answer given to me, is it not possible for the Department to consider the making of grants in order to aid something which is so desirable?

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think we have any funds which would be available for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (DEFENCE).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the large number of unemployed in some of the Colonies, including Kenya; and whether an effort is being made to induce these men to volunteer to form permanent defence units on lines similar to the Territorial Army in Great Britain?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As regards the first part of the question, I am aware that certain Colonial Dependencies are faced with difficulties owing to unemployment, but I understand that there is no appreciable unemployment at present in Kenya. As regards the second part of the question, there are volunteer forces in most Colonial Dependencies, and every effort is made to keep their establishments at full strength.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inquire how many Jews are at present held in detention in Palestine under the prevention of crime ordinance, or in connection with political offences for which they have not yet been tried; how many of the total are Communists; how many Revisionists; and how many of no political denomination?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The number of Jews detained in Palestine under the Defence Regulations on 4th April was 54. I have no knowledge of any detentions under the Crime (Prevention) Ordinance. I am asking the High Com-missioner to report on this point and on the political affiliation of those detained.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make inquiries as to the sentences passed on 17 illegal refugee immigrants into Palestine, about a month ago; whether he is aware that the judge expressed his regret at having to sentence them to three months imprisonment and deportation; whether the law allows any lighter sentence; will they actually be deported, and, if so, to what country; also, how many were men, and how many women?

Mr. MacDonald: The High Commissioner for Palestine has informed me that 17 illegal Jewish immigrants who were arrested on 5th February were sentenced on 22nd March to three months' imprisonment and were recommended for deportation. No minimum penalty is prescribed for illegal entry. On completion of their sentence, these persons will be deported, if possible, to their countries of origin, but I understand that it is the practice to defer execution of the deportation order for a reasonable period when a deportee is making efforts to find another country of asylum. I have no official information regarding the other parts of the question, but I am asking the High Commissioner for a further report.

Colonel Wedgwood: What is the use of postponing sentence to allow these people to find another country of asylum?

Mr. MacDonald: A great many people in many parts of the world are trying to find asylum for these refugees, and we are all trying to help.

Colonel Wedgwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me any country in the world which will take them?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

EXPLOSION, WOOLWICH.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information in the case of War Department Constable Keeble, who was shut in his police hut at the side of the cylinder shed at the time of Woolwich Common explosion; whether he is aware that Constable Keeble is very ill in the Royal Herbert Hospital owing to the explosion; and why only one man was on night duty


at the Signals, Woolwich Common, the Repository, Woolwich, and the Garland Road optical works station?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I think the hon. Member has been misinformed. Police Constable Keeble was on patrol and was about midway between his police lodge and the army medical store, which are 150 yards apart, when the explosion occurred. He has suffered slightly from shock, but has not been a patient at the Royal Herbert Hospital. The protection provided by night at the three establishments mentioned was not con-fined to one police constable.

Mr. Thorne: Is it a fact that Constable Keeble is in hospital, and, if so, what in-jury did he receive to cause him to go there?

Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir, I said that he suffered slightly from shock, but that he is not a patient in the Royal Herbert Hospital.

MUNITION FACTORY, ROTHERWAS (HOUSING, EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the provision of houses for employés in His Majesty's munition factory at Rother was, near Hereford; and whether he is aware that owing to the complete lack of housing accommodation within reasonable distance of this factory, one employé, with his wife and four children, was compelled for some weeks to live in two fowl-houses?

Sir V. Warrender: The provision of housing to meet the general needs of the district is a matter for the local authorities. I am making inquiries, however, with regard to the particular case mentioned in the question, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Commander Marsden: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Shanghai-Nanking Railway, at present controlled by the Japanese, is now in complete working order and carrying a full load of passengers daily; and what steps he has taken to secure the payment of interest to British bondholders?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The Japanese authorities have refused to allow the inspection of the line by British representatives. It is understood, however, that it is in full working order so far as the track is concerned, but that there is only limited accommodation for passengers on the trains. Repeated representations have been made to the Japanese Government in regard to the British interest in this line, and these representations were renewed by His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo on 24th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPRATLEY ISLAND.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister the position with regard to the Japanese occupation of Spratley Island?

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo to protest against the recent Japanese occupation of Spratley Island and to point out the inconsistency of such action with the more friendly attitude towards the British Empire exemplified by the recent reopening of the commercial harbour and wharves at Tsingtao?

Mr. Butler: Spratley Island is on the western fringe of a large archipelago claimed in full sovereignty by the French Government in virtue of its annexation by decree in 1933. The Japanese Government on 30th March announced that they had placed Spratley Island and the other islands claimed by the French under the administrative jurisdiction of the Government of Formosa. The question of a protest is a matter which primarily concerns the French Government.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that we have definite obligations to assist France in the protection of her overseas territory, is it not of the utmost importance that we should associate ourselves with France in any protest at this occupation of French territory by Japan?

Mr. Butler: The House will appreciate that this is a matter primarily for the French Government. His Majesty's Government intend to keep in touch with the French Government in this and in all other matters of common concern.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has not this island any strategical meaning for us as well?

Mr. Butler: Obviously this island is of great strategical importance.

Mr. Gallacher: May we take it that you are watching events?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (COVENANT).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of incorporating in due course, into the machinery of the League of Nations, any arrangements arrived at between this and other countries in resistance to aggression?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Leyton, West (Mr. Sorensen) yesterday, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand that the Government are determined to keep away from the League of Nations and to have nothing whatever to do with it?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, the hon. Member should understand nothing of the sort.

Sir Percy Harris: Under the constitution of the League must not all treaties be registered with the League?

Mr. Butler: I must refer the hon. Baronet to the answer which the Prime Minister gave yesterday, which stated that our obligations under the Covenant will be borne fully in mind.

Mr. Mander: Does not that really point to my question, whether any arrangements that we are now making will later on be incorporated in the machinery of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid I cannot go any further than the answer given yesterday.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the hon. Member say what "incorporating, in due course, into the machinery of the League of Nations" really means?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Government follow the principles laid down by him and other British spokesmen at the Assembly of the League last September?

Mr. Butler: I think I have said quite sufficient on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBYA (ITALIAN FORCES).

Mr.Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what is the strength of the Italian armed forces now in Libya?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 8th March to the hon. Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Day), to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have the Government considered whether the Italian text of the agreement does not make it plain that the reduction to 30,000 was to be a fixed reduction and not liable to increase at the will of the Italian Government?

Mr. Butler: I have already given my view and the view of the Government upon this matter several times, and I do not think I have anything to add to it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do the Government hold that an increase beyond 30,000 is or is not in accordance with the text?

Mr. Butler: I do not think we can regard the original document in this respect as perpetual.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr.Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any communication from the Italian Government concerning their intention to withdraw their armed forces from Spanish territory, including the Balearic Islands?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it the intention of the Government to ask for such a communication at an early date?

Mr. Butler: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave yesterday to similar questions on this subject.

Mr. Benn: Do the Government regard the Italian pledge in respect to the territorial integrity of Spain as being perpetual?

Mr. Butler: I sincerely hope so.

Mr. Mander: Do the Government consider the position altered by the fact that General Franco has now joined the Berlin-Rome axis?

Mr. Butler: General Franco has given assurances in the past which I hope will be observed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIAN FAMILIES, GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Austrian families resident in this country since the German annexation of Austria are receiving telephone calls from the Gestapo in Germany and Austria threatening them that, unless they return part of their money to those countries, their relatives now resident there will be punished; and whether he will make urgent representations to prevent this form of pressure?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be glad to look into the matter, if the hon. Member can supply him with detailed information on the subject.

Mr. Ridley: Having regard to the agonizing experiences of these people even in the most favourable circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to find out how widespread the practice is and then make representations?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly do my best, but I hope the hon. Member will give me any information that he has.

Mr. Watkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that private Members of Parliament are under very grave disadvantages in this matter, and cannot the Foreign Office make investigations and get actual facts on which they can take action?

Mr. Butler: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is keeping in close touch with the situation and watching it carefully.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in many cases the questions that we put down are based on information received from various newspapers, and can he say whether the Foreign Office receives cuttings from the various papers about these international matters?

Mr. Butler: We receive cuttings from every newspaper.

Mr. Thorne: How is it then that sometimes you give the information that you have no information?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on the circumstances under which every naval rating with children to support will have his allowances reduced as from 6th April, and if these reductions will apply to officers with children?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): I am glad to have this opportunity of making clear to the public the system of children's allowances enjoyed by married naval ratings. This system is understood, and I believe appreciated, by the personnel of the Navy, but is not so generally understood by the general public.
Children's allowances for ratings since 1920 have been on a sliding scale varying for each year with the cost of living as ascertained on 1st January of each year. Every 10 points variation is given its appropriate scale. The minimum rates are related to cost of living figures between 46 and 55. Rates of children's allowances fell from 1920 to 1931, when they remained on the minimum scale until 1937. In 1938, however, children's allowances were subject to the appropriate scale increase, because of the increase in the cost of living. On 1st January of this year the cost of living figures showed a decrease of four points, and allowances now go back to the minimum rates where they had stood from 1931 to 1937. The conditions are identical in all three fighting Services.
Some years ago suggestions were made to stabilise the children's allowances. The Board of Admiralty did not favour this course. In present circumstances a sliding scale system has certain advantages. Children's allowances being on the mini-mum cannot fall in the future below the present level whatever the fall in the cost of living. A rise in the cost of living, however, would carry with it the appropriate scale increases. It will be recalled that last year it was found possible to increase the rate of marriage allowance by 7s. or 10s. to a flat rate of 17s. for married ratings.
The position of children's allowances for naval officers is somewhat different. Their scheme was introduced last year in a period not subject to such violent


fluctuations in the cost of living as the immediate post-war period. It was therefore decided to introduce a less complicated scheme on a stabilised basis. Officers will not therefore enjoy like married ratings increases in their scales inherent in a sliding scale system.

Mr. Thorne: On a point of Order. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to put his Private Notice Question as I have a question down on the same subject for written answer. I withdraw my question, however.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether, if the naval regulations allow this to be done, the hon. Gentleman will cause his explanation to be posted on the notice board on mess decks and in barracks, as it is of the first importance that naval ratings should be under no misapprehension about the reductions in pay or allowances.

Commander Marsden: Will my hon. Friend also make it clear that the lower deck ratings will get their children's allowances when they are 25, while officers can get no allowances for children until they are 30?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that there have been no complaints from the lower deck with regard to the working of this scheme?

Mr. Leonard: How many points movement are required before any modification of rates takes place?

Mr. Shakespeare: As regards the first question, I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is of first-class importance that the operation of this scheme should be clearly understood by the lower deck. A Fleet order was issued at the beginning of February, and I hope that that order, posted on every notice board in every naval establishment and warship throughout the world, combined with the publicity which I hope this question and my answer will get, will make the position abundantly clear. As regards the question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Commander Marsden), it is clearly appreciated that the benefit in this respect goes to the naval rating who gets his children's allowances five years earlier than an officer. As regards the question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom

(Sir A. Southby), I think the personnel of the Fleet do appreciate that one year they stand to lose and in another year they are liable to have reductions according to the well-known principle. As regards the last question, the scales are rather complicated, but a variation of 10 points will make a change in the scales.

Mr. McEntee: Do I understand rightly that the movement on 1st January this year was only actually four points?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is so, but it brought it down within the 10 point scale.

Mr. Watkins: What amount per week is represented by the variation in the rise and fall of the cost of living?

Mr. Shakespeare: I had better talk with the hon. Gentleman as it is very complicated?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Did the Fleet order to which the hon. Gentleman has referred contain any explanation of the matter, or is it merely an announcement of the reduction, as it is the explanation which is so important?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is so. It is like all Fleet orders; it is not quite as intelligible as it might be.

Mr. McEntee: Will the hon. Gentleman consider publishing the scales in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Shakespeare: I will consider that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ALBANIA.

Mr. A. Henderson: (by Private Notice), asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the concentration of Italian troops and transport at Bari and Brindisi and the present Italian negotiations with Albania.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): On 4th April His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome drew the attention of the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs to rumours similar to those referred to by the hon. and learned Member. The Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that on 8th March the King of Albania had himself suggested that the existing Treaty of Alliance between Italy and Albania should be strengthened. Discussions on that point have since been taking place between the two Governments; it appears however


that in the course of these negotiations certain difficulties have arisen, the nature of which is not quite plain, and according to the Minister for Foreign Affairs Italian interests have been threatened. I have just learnt that an Italian cruiser and two smaller warships arrived at Durazzo early this morning. I have not yet received a detailed account of the point of view of the Albanian Government, but I have just received from that Government a denial of any report that they have accepted conditions incompatible with Albanian sovereignty and national integrity. His Majesty's. Minister at Darazzo has reported that all was quiet there up to 8.25 a.m. to-day. His Majesty's Government are, of course, closely watching all developments.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the British Ambassador in Rome has drawn the attention of the Italian Government to the fact that any alteration in the status quo in the Mediterranean will be contrary to the Anglo-Italian Agreement?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there has been any occasion to do that. Certainly the Italian Government are aware of the terms of the Anglo-Italian Agreement.

Mr. Bellenger: With regard to the remark that His Majesty's Government were watching developments, may I ask whether His Majesty's Government have any interest in Albania?

The Prime Ministers: No direct interest, but a general interest in the peace of the world.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: In the event there being a change in the status quo in the Mediterranean, does the British Government then contemplate a strong protest to the Italian Government about a breach of the Anglo-Italian Agreement?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be proper for me to anticipate a breach of that Agreement.

Mr. Greenwood: I am not suggesting there would be, but I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention, should that happen, to allow it to pass?

The Prime minister: That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the presence of Italian warships denotes?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say what it denotes. I have given the House the information which I have.

Mr. Lipson: Has the Prime Minister any information that a revised agreement has yet been arrived at between Italy and Albania?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the British Ambassador received any explanation of the concentration of Italian troops at Bari and Brindisi?

The Prime Minister: Not so far as I am aware.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have His Majesty's Government had any communications with the Yugo-Slav Government about this matter?

The Prime Ministers: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SITUATION.

ANGLO-POLISH AGREEMENT.

TRADE (MINISTER'S VISITS, FOREIGN CAPITALS).

Mr. Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the international situation, with special reference to the conversations now proceeding with the Polish Foreign Minister and to the recent visit of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to foreign capitals?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I can give the House the following account of the conversations with the Polish Foreign Minister. The account has been framed jointly by M. Beck on behalf of the Polish Government and the Foreign Secretary and myself on behalf of His Majesty's Government. The conversations with M. Beck have covered a wide field and shown that the two Governments are in complete agreement upon certain general principles.
It was agreed that the two countries were prepared to enter into an agreement of a permanent and reciprocal character to replace the present temporary and unilateral assurance given by His


Majesty's Government to the Polish Government. Pending the completion of the permanent agreement, M. Beck gave His Majesty's Government an assurance that the Polish Government would consider themselves under an obligation to render assistance to His Majesty's Government under the same conditions as those contained in the temporary assurance already given by His Majesty's Government to Poland.
Like the temporary assurance, the permanent agreement would not be directed against any other country but would be designed to assure Great Britain and Poland of mutual assistance in the event of any threat, direct or indirect, to the independence of either. It was recognised that certain matters, including a more precise definition of the various ways in which the necessity for such assistance might arise, would require further examination before the permanent agreement could be completed.
It was understood that the arrangements above mentioned should not preclude either Government from making agreements with other countries in the general interest of the consolidation of peace.
With regard to the journey of my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Department for Overseas Trade, he has visited Warsaw, Moscow, Helsingfors and Stockholm. At Warsaw he was able to clear up a number of difficulties which had arisen in the working of the trade agreement with Poland and to discuss with the Ministers concerned the development of Polish industrial equipment. At Moscow my right hon. Friend discussed the general economic relations between our two countries and was able to obtain the consent of the Soviet Government for the opening in London of negotiations for a new agreement. As the result of conversations at Helsingfors and Stockholm it was agreed that deputations of industrialists should be sent at an early date to London with a view to devising practical methods of increasing our exports to Finland and Sweden.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing on behalf of His Majesty's Government my appreciation of the hospitality which was extended to my right hon. Friend's delegation and the helpful way in which the Governments concerned co-operated in making his tour a success.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, on completion of the discussions with Colonel Beck, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to use what influence they have to get similar reciprocal arrangements between the French and the Polish Governments; and on the completion of this Agreement does the right hon. Gentleman then propose to proceed swiftly to that wider basis of association which on this side of the House we regard as essential and fundamental?

The Prime Minister: In regard to the first question, I think the arrangements already existing between Poland and France are practically similar to those which are contemplated between the Polish and British Governments. With regard to the second supplementary question, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to proceed with the consultations and communications which have already been begun with other Governments.

Mr. Greenwood: With reference to the Trade Agreement part of the answer, I assume that the missions which are coming over here will be coming here pretty quickly, and that the House will have an early opportunity of understanding the course of those discussions?

The Prime Minister: I could not at the moment say exactly when they may be expected to come over, but the House will be kept fully informed.

Mr. Benn: Has it been decided what does constitute a threat to Polish independence?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As I said in the statement I made, that will be the subject of further discussion between the representatives of the Polish Government and ourselves.

Sir P. Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that at an early date staff conversations will be initiated with Poland in which France can take part; and, further, will he assure the House that during these discussions friendly contact is kept with Russia?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the question, I am not in a position to give an assurance of that specific character, but I think the hon. Baronet may rest assured that when this


Agreement is completed, or while this Agreement is being completed, we shall take all the steps that seem to us necessary to make it effective. As regards the other question, my Noble Friend is keeping in close touch with the Soviet Ambassador.

Mr. Boothby: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us with what other Governments consultations are taking place?

The Prime Minister: I think that might be misleading, because although we have begun consultations with other Governments it does not follow that that is the end. There are a number of Governments we wish to consult.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May we be assured that the Foreign Secretary will be in con-tact with the Soviet Government during the Easter holidays, these 10 days, which may be very dangerous days?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my Noble Friend intends to keep in close touch with the Soviet Ambassador, but I am not going to tie him down by saying that he is going to see him every day.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Are the United States Government being kept fully informed of these consultations?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

—
Week ending 11th March, 1939
Estimated annual cost of outdoor relief in money or in kind to old age pensioners and their dependants falling to be met out of rates and the Block Grants.


Number of old age pensioners to whom outdoor relief in money and kind was granted during the week
Number of dependants of persons in Col. 1 other than those who are them-selves in receipt of old age pensions
Total cost of outdoor relief in money or in kind granted to persons accounted for in Cols. 2 &amp; 3
Amount
Equivalent rate in the pound


1
2
3
4
5
6


COUNTIES.


£
£
s.
d.


Aberdeen
…
247
145
93
4,849

2·7


Angus
…
265
41
80
4,171

5·0


Argyll
…
320
50
91
4,745

5.8


Ayr
…
1,701
232
535
27,896

10·1


Banff
…
150
64
45
2,346

8·3


Berwick
…
73
13
29
1,512

4·1


Bute
…
83
6
23
1,199

5·2


Caithness
…
146
38
53
2,764
1
7·8


Clackmannan
…
65
14
17
886

3·3


Dumfries
…
157
71
55
2,868

3·3


Dunbarton
…
722
161
269
14,026

7·3


East Lothian
…
323
46
92
4,797

6·4


Fife
…
1,187
223
283
14,756

6·2

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER).

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 18th April; provided that if it is represented to Mr. Speaker by His Majesty's Government that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, and Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the public interest does so require, he may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and the Government Business to be transacted on the day on which the House shall so meet shall, subject to the publication of notice thereof in the Order Paper to be circulated on the day on which the House shall so meet, be such as the Government may appoint, but subject as aforesaid the House shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to the day on which it shall so meet, and any Government Orders of the Day and Government Notices of Motions that may stand on the Order Book for the 18th day of April or any subsequent day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet; provided also that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his capacity as Deputy-Speaker, be authorised to act in his stead for the purposes of this Resolution."—[The Prime Minister.]

REFUGEES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

12.5 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I want to call the attention of the Government and of the House of Commons to the problem of the political, religious and racial refugees, which exists at the present time. It is now five months since we discussed this question and in the meantime Governments and private organisations have been able to settle a few thousands of these people overseas, and a few more, tens of thousands, have been brought to safety where temporary hospitality has been found; but against that meagre quota we have seen the addition of perhaps 250,000 Spanish refugees, many of whom cannot return to Spain while the present regime endures, and perhaps tens of thousands of Slovaks, Czechs and Sudeten Germans, and many other refugees as well. In addition, Italy, Hungary, Bohemia, Slovakia and Moravia have introduced anti-Semite legislation on the German model. There are even rumours, which I hope the Noble Lord will say are without foundation, that in return for our military guarantee the Polish Government propose to make a

great annual addition to the stream of involuntary refugees.
It is not in numbers only that matters have been growing worse. As each month passes the resources of the Jews in Germany and elsewhere grow less. The destruction by the German Government of the earning power of the Jews is growing more complete and the moment when they must leave Germany or die comes nearer. I was told only this morning by someone with an intimate knowledge of the facts that the 20,000 Jews in Vienna are literally at their last gasp and that they are living on the meagre ration of thin soup and a tiny piece of bread which they are able to get by standing in long queues in the streets, throughout the night hours. As each week passes the resources of the charitable societies and their funds are being used up, not in productive schemes of final settlement but simply in keeping the refugees alive. I want to submit to the Noble Lord and to the House that we have reached the point with this refugee problem which the Governments found they had reached with the post-War refugee problem in 1921, when they appointed Dr. Nansen High Commissioner of the League to deal with this matter—the point where it is vital that the whole question should be treated no longer as a humanitarian matter but as one of urgent, political and economic importance to Europe as a whole, with which the Governments in their own interest and the interest of their own peoples must now deal.
In what I am going to say this morning I do not want to deal with any special question. There is the old problem of the German Jews and the newer problems of the Spaniards and Czechs, but I do not want to speak upon what I might call the humanitarian interest and the tragic suffering of the refugees. I will leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) and other hon. Members who have an intimate knowledge of the facts. My hon. Friend acquired at first hand an experience and a feeling about this matter which is perhaps more vivid and more intense than my own. I want to review the problem very briefly and in the broadest outline as a political, economic and administrative problem with which the Government should deal, and in so doing I want to make certain practical proposals—at least, I hope the Noble


Lord will think they are practical—which are drawn from a long experience in a humble capacity in the highly successful refugee administration of Dr. Nansen, long years ago.
What are the essential facts in the present situation, from the broad political and economic point of view? They are that there are hundreds of thousands of refugees in the countries neighbouring Germany, Czecho-Slovakia, Austria and Spain who are longing to be settled in new careers in distant lands. We are longing to settle them. There are hundreds of thousands of would-be refugees still in Germany and these other countries, in daily danger of death or of torture which to them is far worse than the quick death for which they hope. They are longing to leave those countries and we are longing to bring them away, but the absorptive capacity of those neighbouring countries and the resources of their charitable societies are very near their end, because, in spite of the long months that have passed, we have not yet found the outlets in new countries for the refugees whom we have already temporarily taken in. We must find those outlets and find them soon. Unless we do, we shall allow a disaster to happen which will leave on our generation a lasting mark of shame.
The Noble Lord is as well aware as I am, and perhaps much better than I, that those outlets can be found by what is called infiltration, a movement of individuals and small groups of refugees, and, secondly, by settlement, a movement of larger groups and bodies co-operating in big development schemes. Both infiltration and settlement are important. Infiltration is much more important than it appears, because if there is adequate administrative machinery and sufficient money, very big results may be obtained by it. A plan of settlement by these two methods is urgently required and every day that goes by without such a plan involves cruelty, suffering, fearful waste of the lives of the refugees and of the contribution which they ought to make to the welfare of the world, and burdens which their maintenance in idleness imposes on those who keep them. That is waste in which every nation and every Government are involved.
I have been forced reluctantly to the conclusion that neither His Majesty's

Government nor other Governments have sufficiently realised the vital importance of speed in this regard. It is now nearly a year since the invitations were first sent out to the conference at Evian and five months since the Jewish pogroms in Germany. I am informed that the British Guiana commission of inquiry is still very far from being able to prepare a positive report; the Rhodesian committee of inquiry left on its journey only two weeks ago; the inquiry into San Domingo has not made much progress; Palestine is still completely or virtually closed; Tanganyika and Madagascar have been discussed but, so far as I know, no systematic inquiry has even been begun. The Noble Lord will no doubt correct me if I have exaggerated. I hope I have, but even if I am only approximately right, surely that lamentable condition of affairs must be quickly improved. How can that be done?
I believe that three things are required, in regard to each of which His Majesty's Government can play a leading part. The first is to propagate at home and abroad, a wholly new conception in the Governments, particularly the Governments of the overseas countries, of this question of the immigration of refugees. Since 1931 the refugee has been the first victim of the economic crisis. He is always the first man to lose his job, and always and everywhere unemployment has become a factor governing the retention of existing, or preventing the admission of new, refugees. It is understandable enough and, as I think, justified in old and thickly populated countries like our own. How can we admit very large numbers of refugees when we have great numbers of unemployed?
But the situation really is radically different for the new and undeveloped countries of the world. I mention no names, but there are many countries where the population could be, with great advantage to all concerned and to the people who now live there themselves, three, four, 10 times what it is to-day, countries where a large-scale entry of new population, with adequate capital to launch it, might start, as indeed it has started in Palestine in recent years, a new wave of prosperity which these countries have not known for many years. To such countries as these the refugees would not be a liability; they would be an asset.
Indeed the history of every forced migration, from the days of the Huguenots onwards, has proved that this is true. Even in this country 11,000 refugees, who have come to stay have given new employment to 15,000 British subjects. You can see it on a far greater scale in Greece, where the coming of 1,500,000 refugees in 1922 was greeted with the most acute apprehension, but Greece to-day is economically a far stronger and more prosperous country than she was then. The refugees brought in the production of tobacco, sultanas, raisins, silk, and a large-scale fishing industry. They drained marshes, irrigated desert land, and developed the country, large parts of which had been allowed to go to waste.
So it might be with these German Jews, Czechs, Spaniards and others to-day in many countries. They are magnificent material, clever, industrious and highly skilled. Indeed from a broad point of view the essential fact in the whole refugee situation is that the finest brains in the world can be bought in the market for almost nothing, and by the large-scale infiltration of doctors, engineers, and other specialists the less developed countries could raise the whole standard of living of their peoples and by large-scale settlement schemes new countries could be opened up by the people who went there and who want only to be allowed to cultivate the ground in order that they and their children may be able to live.
I believe that the Government, the Noble Lord, and the High Commissioner of the League could render a signal service if they would propagate this imaginative constructive view of the problem by all the means in their power. They might start at home with the Colonial Office, which I think could do with a little stimulus in this regard. Both in public and in private, in their speeches in the Evian Committee and in the Council of the Assembly of the League, I believe they could do very much to put this view across, and I believe it is from a vivid, ever-present sense of the wasteful folly of the present situation that the dynamic power of settlement schemes must come, as it came through Dr. Nansen 17 years ago. That dynamic power is important, but it will not avail unless the necessary capital can be found. With such material, with such openings as there are,

the restless enterprising capitalists of the nineteenth century would have put up the money, started these enterprises, settled the refugees and made a handsome profit for themselves. In these degenerate days we must find the capital in other ways, and without any question the Governments will have to help.
I want to suggest two minor measures by which a great deal could be done to find the money. They are both urged on the attention of Governments in the last annual report of the governing body of the Nansen office. The first is the introduction of a surcharged postage stamp in favour of the refugees. This has actually been done in Norway and in France. I expect the Noble Lord has seen the stamps. The Governments print them and they bear an extra charge of 1d. They are sold in the post offices and they are bought by those who voluntarily desire to buy them. The Governments hand the proceeds of the 1d. to the Nansen office. Those countries furnish from this source only an annual revenue of £4,000. If our Government would introduce such a stamp, with the feelings of our people towards the refugees and with the immense postal correspondence that we have, the revenue would be much greater and, if the Government could induce the United States to do the same, as I believe they could, if they could persuade the 32 Governments in the Evian Committee to do the same, they might raise a revenue of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands a year, and they would do it without the addition of a single penny of taxation on our people here.
The second proposal is in the same order of ideas. It is the extension of the system of the Nansen stamp. to the Nansen passport. Refugees who can afford it pay five gold francs a year for the renewal of their Nansen passport. Hundreds of thousands of refugees could afford to pay that small sum. The system is actually in force in France, Norway, Great Britain and a few other countries. If the Noble Lord and the Government could persuade the United States and the 32 Governments in the Evian Committee to adopt this system, again a very big revenue might result. I think that with that revenue, and with what came from the surcharged postage stamps, over a period of years, a large-scale work of infiltration could be carried through. But


there would have to be for large-scale settlement schemes big public loans, backed, at least in part, by the Governments, and backed with a definite Government guarantee that the interest and sinking fund would be repaid. I cannot conceive that the loans needed, in view of the number of refugees, will be less than £10,000,000. I cannot believe that the Government guarantee will have to be less than 50 per cent. Some people may say it is no use asking for the loans till you have the settlement plans. I think the plans might be more speedily produced if the money had already been found. In any case I urge that such loans would not be a total loss. The refugees, when settled, might turn out to be a very good investment. In any case a considerable part of the money would be repaid. I hope the Noble Lord will be able to give us encouragement in this regard to-day.
Thirdly and lastly, there is the question of: administration. You are trying to take hundreds of thousands of helpless, destitute people from one country to other countries and to start them in new careers. It is a great administrative problem; it is an international problem; it cannot be dealt with by one government alone, or by a number of governments acting in groups of two or three—it requires an international administrative machine; and I say from bitter experience that, unless that machine exists, the practical difficulties will be immeasurably increased. Under this heading I want to draw the Noble Lord's attention to several points.
The first is that, by a decision of the Council of the League of Nations or of the Evian Committee—and I hope he can give us an assurance on this matter —all categories of refugees, Czechs, Spaniards, all the past, present and future refugees, will be placed under the authority and protection of Sir Herbert Emerson, either in his capacity as High Commissioner of the League or as Director of the Evian Committee. It is grotesque that certain categories should still be outside his scope; it is grotesque, wasteful and unjust. Secondly, I want to urge on the Noble Lord that the system of the Nansen passport should be extended to every refugee, of whatever category, who wants it. It may seem a little thin—a non-national certificate, a

validity limited in both time and space; but, to the refugee, a Nansen passport is very often the beginning of salvation. I have read a statement made about it by an American student of the subject. He says:
It is a fantastic commentary on the inhumanity of our times that for thousands and thousands of people a piece of paper with a stamp on it is the difference between life and death, and that scores of people have blown out their brains because they could not get it; but there is no doubt that, by and large, the Nansen passport is the greatest thing that has happened for the individual refugee; it returns to him his lost identity.
I hope the Noble Lord is going to see that every refugee who wants a Nansen passport shall get it. In the next place, I submit that Sir Herbert Emerson ought to have what I do not think he has today, if I am rightly informed, namely, his own offices in all the countries connected with this problem—in all the countries neighbouring on Germany, Czechoslovakia and Spain; in Poland, Rumania, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium, France, in all the countries where there may be openings for refugees. In the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Canada, Australia, San Domingo, the Latin-American Republics, Madagascar, if you like, Sir Herbert Emerson should have his own offices, with his own competent representatives, of status sufficient to treat with Government Departments, representing both the League of Nations, as I should hope, and the Evian Committee, closely linked to Sir Herbert and to each other by a full and ready service of mutual information, furnished with proper clerical assistance and with the funds necessary for dealing with current matters as they arise. The function of these offices would be to despatch refugees, to choose the groups that would go, to look for openings, to help refugees on their journey, to get them their visas, to give them the protection and assistance that are needed when they arrive. I say with the utmost confidence, and with, I think, a complete knowledge of the facts, that without such as international administrative machine Dr. Nansen could never have got even a small part of the results which he obtained. I think that, if I could have shown the Noble Lord the Nansen Office in Constantinople, Belgrade or Athens when it was in full work, I could have convinced him that what I say is true.
This international administrative machine cannot be supplied by private charitable organisations, or by the diplomatic machinery of Foreign Offices and trade missions abroad; it means a special service of trained and able men. The men can be found; I could find them. If Sir Herbert Emerson were given £20,000 or £30,000 on his Budget for this purpose, I would guarantee that it would quadruple his hopes of a practical result. These are the suggestions that I want to lay before the Noble Lord, and I hope he will be able to tell us that he and his colleagues will propagate the view that the refugee problem is not a matter of sentiment and charity, but a broad political and economic problem, and that he and the Government will try, here in the Colonial Office, with the Dominions, and in distant countries abroad, to urge that an imaginative and constructive view should be taken of the opportunity which this refugee problem seems to afford. I hope he will tell us that he will strive, in the ways I have suggested and by other means, to find the money without which nothing can be done, and that, through the League of Nations and the Evian Committee, he will build up the international administration that is needed if practical results are to be obtained. Above all, I hope he will tell us that the period of delay is over, and that the Government's action will be swift and bold, both for the sake of the refugees and in the interests, moral and material, of us all.

12.32 p.m.

Mr. Wise: The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has stated that this problem of the refugees is one, not of sentiment, but of broad political and economic aspects. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I try to draw attention to some of the difficulties which attend the bold solution that is so warmly advocated by the hon. Member. He himself recognises the practical impossibility of any large-scale infiltration into this country, and on that point I think there will be practically no dissentient voice throughout the country. We have, after all, a population per square mile which is staggering in its density. I will not pretend to accuracy, but I believe it is somewhere about 620 or 630 per square mile. It is practically impossible for us

to absorb any large number of refugees here; such absorption must be confined to a very small body of specialists who really can fit themselves into our body politic.
There is a further problem in dealing with the admission of refugees to other parts of the world. Those parts which are directly under our control are the Colonial possessions of the Crown, and up to date there has been no very violent indication that any large body of refugees want to go there. There has not been any terrific enthusiasm for the opening up of African and other tropical areas which are under our direct control. Probably there is great scope there. We have these areas which, if populated by an industrious race which has the driving force of stern necessity behind it, might be developed where ordinary settlers and colonists could not possibly develop them, but a careful survey is required before any such scheme can be put into force, and a good deal of persuasion of the refugees themselves would be required before they would undertake what is very nearly as hazardous a proceeding as remaining in the countries where they are now. To take people from Central Europe and plant them down to feed themselves or starve in the tropics is undoubtedly a hazardous experiment.

The Paymaster-General (Earl Winter-ton): I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, especially as I am going to speak on this matter, but the point is so important that I must make it clear that it is not accurate to say that either the refugee organisations or individual refugees take a gloomy view of settlement in those countries. On the contrary, almost every day applications are received expressing the hope that it will be possible to have these settlement schemes.

Mr. Wise: I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend's statement. It suggests great hope for the future. I trust that the schemes and the development of those areas will be carried out as soon as possible. It would bring benefit to our Empire as well as to the refugees. There is another problem in regard to the Dominions, which have their own ideas about whom they shall or shall not admit. Although it is possible to do a certain amount by suggestion to these Dominions


—and, indeed, one Dominion has reciprocated in the most friendly way—itis only fair to recognise that these Governments have the most serious apprehensions about the effect on their body politic of the influx of a large number of people of different races from their own. This feeling is not anti-Semitic. The apprehension is not felt because the majority of the refugees would be Jews, but because the majority would be Central Europeans. It is impossible to deny sympathy to those Dominion Governments which are checking the full flood of refugees who would undoubtedly like to enter their various territories.
With the other 32 Governments in the Evian Conference, I think we could probably exercise the same form of persuasion and argument as we have with the Dominion Governments. But they, too, have their serious problems. Their problems, in many cases, are political ones. It is the unfortunate fact that many of these refugees are refugees because they hold Left-wing tendencies. They are refugees from authoritarian Governments, which do not like them. But a large number of these 32Governments are also authoritarian Governments, and they have no desire to admit this influx of people of highly pronounced political views. That is a problem which requires careful thought, and is not overwhelmingly easy of solution. Although we have profound sympathy with the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Derby, I think it is impossible for any guarantee to be given that things will progress much faster. We know that my right hon. Friend has spared neither time nor labour in his efforts in presiding over this conference, and the results attained are, on the whole, sufficiently encouraging for us not to disturb the lines on which we are proceeding. Our main concern should be with those territories under our own control, where, I believe, great steps can be made, and, I am sure, will be made.

12.39 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I sympathise, at least on one point, with the speech of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise). I think we might, at least, keep the refugees within the Empire, instead of sending them to Madagascar. After all, they are intelligent people, capable of producing wealth, and useful assets to any country which takes them in. That at least

is recognised that we have benefited in this country in the past from the countless immigrations—the Huguenots; before that the Flemings; and, to go back further still, I suppose we have got some advantage from Norman blood. In any case, the hon. Member does recognise that the refugees are not the curse they are considered to be by most countries and most Governments, including our own. That they have Left views is utterly false. The bulk of the refugees—not 90 per cent., but, I should think, more like 95 per cent. —are Jews, who are not allowed to live anywhere, whatever their views. There is no sort of excuse made in Germany any longer that they do not like these Jews because they are Socialists or Communists. There is no longer any objection here from the point of view of their politics, it is their race.
Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker). He brings forward these schemes of colonisation and recurrent loans to solve the problem in a way that I have no doubt the Government will adopt, by mass emigration to Kenya, Tanganyika and other places of that sort. In the first place, the Jews do not want to live in the Tropics, and I do not see why they should be made to live in the Tropics.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I never mentioned either Kenya or Tanganyika. I am as much in favour as the right hon. And gallant Member of sending them to Palestine, and I hope the Government will do it.

Colonel Wedgwood: It is the only thing to be done. The Jews do not want to be sent to Honduras or to Guiana, which is uncomfortably close to Cayenne. Any schemes to emigrate these people in mass are almost bound to fail. I' have seen something of them. Other Members besides myself have been to Macedonia and seen the Greek settlements there. We advanced the money for that: £10,000,000 from the Nansen scheme. It is not a recurrent debt; it is a total loss.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Greek Government have paid their interest charges from that day to now with a certain diminution in the rate of interest since 1933. Moreover, the whole Macedonian question has been solved, to the great benefit of Europe as a whole.

Colonel Wedgwood: They may be meeting the charges from the taxpayers, but not from the people who are benefiting.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The refugees are making their contribution as taxpayers but they have also made a very considerable direct contribution.

Colonel Wedgwood: The Hope-Simpson scheme in Macedonia was for putting people on the land in their own country, where the people spoke the same language and where the refugees wanted to go. But even in that case, with everything in their favour, starting with the fact that it cost only £100 per family, the settlers have not been able to meet the charges. Vast schemes were made after the War, at great expense to us, to plant people in Australia. There, too, as in Macedonia, the charges have not been met. There, too, the money has not been a revolving loan. In the Australian case it is worse than in the Macedonian case. The great majority of the people have not been able to make the land pay. In Palestine, you have got the Jews of the world, at a far greater expense per head than in Macedonia, being planted on the land. I do not think that any of them, certainly not 10 per cent., are paying any interest on the money that was advanced for the land and equipment.
Any scheme of colonisation done by organisations seems inevitably fated to fail as an investment. The colonisation in which we have succeeded has been individual colonisation. The settlement of Australia, North America and New Zealand has been done by individuals who have gone out without assistance and have made a living for themselves. If you look at the whole history of the world you will find that individual emigration done voluntarily, without compulsion and without State feeding, has been by far the most efficient and successful. We shall console our consciences, no doubt, by spending some millions of money upon emigrating people to wherever the hon. Member for Derby wants to send them, but it will not be a success and it will not solve the Jewish problem in the very least. You are not dealing, as you were in the case of the Greeks, with 100,000 people.

Mr. Noel-Baker: A million and a half.

Colonel Wedgwood: There were not a million and a half put in Macedonia.

Sir Arthur Salter: Five hundred thousand in Macedonia itself, but 1,200,000 refugees were dealt with.

Colonel Wedgwood: In any case, whether it was 500,000 or 1,200,000, it does not touch the problem of the Jews at the present time. There are 3,000,000 Jews in Poland all without means of livelihood, very nearly 1,000,000 in Rumania, upwards of 1,000,000 in Lithuania and the Baltic States and another 500,000 in Hungary, and there must be at least 1,000,000 still in the Reich, plus a considerable number in Italy. It is a problem that no scheme of compulsory colonisation can possibly meet, and it is no good thinking that we can solve this problem for the Jews, or for our own consciences, or for the world by plantation schemes within the conception of the British Government. As the House has been told so much about the virtues of the Macedonian and the Greek scheme, I would point out to hon. Gentlemen that the people who were planted on the land in Macedonia were agriculturists, and the people who were put into the factories were trained in making carpets. It is not a case there of taking the population and changing its character. In the case of the Jews you are not dealing with people who are agriculturists or trained as mechanics. You have a different problem. You are dealing with people of the middle and trading classes, and it is going to be far more difficult to make a success with people who have no experience whatever of agricultural work. It all comes back to the one point that these Jews want to go to Palestine, and why on earth should they not go to Palestine? There they would be among their friends, speaking a language which is understood, and would be helped by people struggling in the same line of business. Why not look at the one thing which is obvious and drop dreams of colonisation elsewhere?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I never said a word of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying about Palestine. I would put 500,000 Jews into Palestine within five years, if I could do it. We have to deal with 5,000,000 according to the figures that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is giving himself, and there are many others besides these—the Spaniards, Czechs and many others.

Mr. Crossley: And even the Arabs.

Sir A. Salter: The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has really got an impression of the character of the Macedonian scheme which is completely at variance with the facts. I know something of the position, as I was the principal officer at the League of Nations dealing with this scheme. The main facts were that 1,200,000 refugees had to be dealt with, of which a great number coming from Smyrna were not agriculturists and were settled in towns. In Macedonia alone 500,000 people were settled, and while it is true that the refugees themselves did not pay the full interest on the loan, the Greek Government, until the financial crisis paid the rest in full, and it was recouped from the refugees as taxpayers and from the general increase in prosperity resulting from their production. The settlement of refugees in Macedonia and Greece was an enormous economic asset to the country. It was a most encouraging experiment for large-scale schemes being taken in hand by Government authority.

Colonel Wedgwood: I am very glad to hear the hon. Member speak so well of that scheme, but when I was there it struck me that from the form of the scheme, the only chance of the scheme succeeding was that the vast majority of the people in Macedonia were agriculturists and did know something about the job. It does not alter the point that here you are trying to do the very same thing with people who know nothing about the job whatever. There they were already dumped upon the shores of Greece, and transport was not difficult. Here you have an enormous distance to travel. There you had the land which is essential to any colonisation provided free, having been taken from the Turkish landlord by the Greeks without compensation. There you had the population willing to receive them, and they were in their own country. Here you are dumping alien colonists among people that do not want them; settled at an enormous price for the land in the first place. There is the question of climate. Between Smyrna and Macedonia the climate is practically the same, but between Poland, Germany, Vienna and the sub-tropical colonies that are mentioned, the difference is complete. I do not want us to have any part in sending people to die of

malaria in the tropics; attempting work to which they are not accustomed.
I will give the hon. Member another instance. Take the case of the Assyrians. The Assyrians who supported us in the War were massacred by the Iraq Government, and, more so than in the case of the Jews, we were bound in honour to do something to save the remnants of that people, about 150,000. We made inquiries all over the world. It was suggested that they might go to Transjordan, and somebody objected there. They would not have been far away. It was suggested that they should go to British Guiana, and the place was inspected and was found utterly unsuitable for people from Assyria. In the end nothing was done and they are left in Iraq, because the Government there dare no longer massacre them.
That leads me to the obvious way in which we ought to solve the Jewish problem, and that is, to prevent these Eastern European countries from exterminating the Jewish race. We are now making arrangements with Poland. We are binding ourselves to them in an almost holy pact that we shall defend them and that they will defend us, if need be. I hope that we shall in any circumstances carry out our word. When we are coming to these arrangements whereby the independence of Poland is saved and guaranteed, we might do something to prevent the Polish Government any longer pursuing this vile religious and racial discrimination against the unfortunate people who have lived there for the best part of 700 years. Exactly the same thing applies to Rumania. There are 1,000,000 Jews who have lived there perfectly peacefully, and who during the War took their part with Rumania in the struggle. They have committed no sort of crime against that country, but latterly they have been persecuted, not essentially by the Rumanians but at the instigation of German agents in that country. If we come to any arrangement with Rumania, is it not possible to save some of these people there? This argument applies even more to Lithuania, where one word from us would stop the persecution of the Jews. The argument applies just as strongly to Esthonia and Latvia.
If you want to solve the Jewish problem and take a decent place in history, it will


not be by emigrating 100,000 people to Kenya and Tanganyika, but by stopping the persecution at the source. Let us get back to that decent state of civilisation which we enjoyed before the War. With regard to those poor people who are in Germany, the problem is measurable. First, I would let them go to Palestine and Transjordan. If they must die of starvation, it is far better to die of starvation in their own country, among friends, than to die of starvation among the butchers in Germany. Surely, we in this country might do something to help these people here. America is behaving decently as far as refugees are concerned, compared with us. America is taking 27,000 a year—not many, but it is something. When these 27,000 people get to America, they are allowed to work. In this country we can take only the well-to-do, and even those are refused permission to work. We have a falling birth rate, and we have an urgent need for men, and yet we are doing our best to keep out children and able-bodied men from Germany. The only sort of people that he will admit with any ease are the women who come as domestic servants.
I have had a letter from a girl appealing for assistance. The Home Office, on the whole, have been pretty good within their limits, in doing their best to help individual cases. They have always done their best for me when I have brought cases to their notice. I obtained permission for two refugees from Czechoslovakia, husband and wife, to come here. The Home Office were good enough to cable out to Prague, at my expense, to get the visa authorised. These two people are on the transport coming here now, but they have had to leave behind a sister, whose husband is imprisoned in Germany, and her four-year-old child. This young woman writes thanking me for getting out her brother-in-law and sister, and says, in German:
Unfortunately, the consul said for me there is no visa, and I cannot come by the next transport. If a telegraphic visa could be sent from London for me and my child to come the consul would let us go. I am absolutely without money or food, and the Jewish community have no money left for food, either. I cannot get anything from them. I cannot expect anything but death for myself and child. I am getting weaker.
Of course, nothing can be done. It is no good my asking them to telegraph a

visa, because I cannot give a guarantee. I have given quite enough guarantees, and I do not see how I can be expected to do more. Here is this poor woman in this plight, and she is only one of thousands who are huddling in door-ways, waiting for the hope of coming to England. Yet the only people we allow in are those who have friends here rich enough to guarantee them, or those who have money of their own outside and can manage to get out of the country. All the money has been taken away from the unfortunate people who are left. I have been trying to get people out, but one cannot manage it because it costs too much money. What can we expect these millions of poor people to do, and what can we expect the people of England to do in the circumstances?
I will endeavour to take the House through the different categories of people affected. There is the great class of domestic servants. English people can apply for a domestic servant and so get somebody out from Vienna, but they have to be between the ages of 18 and 45. Anyone who wants a servant of that sort has, first, to prove that the servant will not be displacing British labour. That is easy enough, because most people are taking them in extra to give them food and shelter. Next, a guarantee has to be given that they will not be a burden on the country. That is comparatively easy; but they must be between the ages of 18 and 45 and, by a curious irony, the only women who can come in are those who are single, widows, or divorced. The married woman is not allowed to come here as a domestic servant, even if she is between the ages of 18 and 45, if her husband is in Germany in a concentration camp, or free.
We want domestic servants, and I can assure the House that the sort of people we are getting as domestics are not the people who create anti-Semitism in this country. Anti-Semitism in this country is created by the rich and ostentatious Jew and not by these wretched refugees; it is the ostentation of a certain class of Jew, largely employers of labour, and not the poor people. I think we might press on the Government the desirability of extending the age at which people can enter domestic service in this country. Let them come in at 15 instead of 18, and up to 50, so that we can get some


of the older women in as well. There was a scheme for getting children into this country up to the age of 18, but that has been knocked on the head entirely as far as children between 16 and 18 years of age are concerned, and now generally by demanding these deposits in cash. Children between 15 and 18 need saving just as much as any man and just as much as the younger children. If they get posts as domestic servants it may be that many of them may be exploited, but it is much better to be exploited in England than to starve in Germany.
I hope the Noble Lord who is going to reply—I wish it was the Home Office —will consider making it a little easier to save women who are willing to come in as domestic servants. It is perfectly well known that they are not really domestic servants; they are being saved by charitable people and really there ought not to be this artificial restriction preventing girls between 15 and 18 coming in, preventing married women coming in, and preventing women between 45 and 50 coming in as well. As far as domestics are concerned there is a much more important matter. Nearly all the women who have come over are earning 15s. or £1 per week and are desperately trying to keep their parents or husbands or brothers alive in other parts of the world. Some of them are sending money to Shanghai and some of them, I know, have been sending money to Finland. Some of these wretched relations or friends have nothing on earth to live on. A great many of these women are sending then-money, changing it into reichsmarks, in order to keep their parents or relations alive. They have come over here solely in order to keep their people alive. It is good English money which is being sent away to support these starving people in Vienna, yet when these people try to get their relations over here and offer a guarantee that they shall not come on the Poor Law the guarantee which they give on their wages is not accepted.
I will not say that is so in every case, but it is extremely difficult to persuade the Jewish Aid Refugee Committee to take the guarantee of anyone in domestic service. I have failed over and over again. They will not look at the guarantee of anybody in domestic service. I think they might be induced to accept such a guarantee if the employer is willing

to countersign it. It would give the Jewish Aid Refugee Committee a certain security, and in this way, where the employers are entirely in sympathy with the refugee and are playing the part of a Christian rather than of an employer, you would be able to get countersignatures. Nearly all these people come over here in order to earn money to keep their people, and finally to get their people over here. A mother will come over here in order to keep her husband and family, particularly widows who are striving to earn money enough for their children who are left behind to carry on. One cannot conceive of the sufferings of well-to-do people who have been deprived of everything, even of their bank balance. They have to start from the bottom. I do not say that they make good domestic servants; they have not been accustomed to it. But do let them have the advantages of their sacrifice. Let them give the necessary guarantee and be allowed to get their nearest and dearest into this country, where they are safe.
I must touch on the question of the children. A great splash was made three months ago when we decided that we would get over as many children as we could. The Government were extremely generous and said that 4,000 and 5,000 under the age of 18 might be brought over. We proceeded, and in due time got over 3,400 under the scheme; but suddenly the scheme dried up. We are not allowed to get in any more. Before the scheme was in operation I got three children into houses where the people were prepared to adopt the child. They could not really adopt an alien child, but the families into which they entered were prepared to feed, clothe and educate them until they reached the age of 18. That was before the Government or Baldwin scheme of child migration came along. Now you cannot get children in the old way, and you cannot get any more children in under the authorised scheme. The Government put Lord Gorell in charge of that scheme. He has only just taken over, but I hope the Noble Lord who is going to reply will make some inquiries into the working of that scheme and find out why no more children are being allowed to come in. The difficulty in the way is this: You can get a child in only if you guarantee, as before, to support it, and also only if for that child arrangements


are being made to re-emigrate it elsewhere, so that the people who want really to adopt the children lose all pleasure in doing so. They are only to educate the children until the age of 18, and then the children are to be sent off to America, Australia, or some other country. That is not what these people want. They want somebody who will be with them in their old age, when ties of affection have grown up.
Why should these children be compelled to re-emigrate? A great deal of the personal interest is destroyed by that. Why should the further step have been taken, within the last month, of demanding from people who are good enough to take these children a deposit of £50 before they may have the children? In the case of children between 16 and 18 years of age, the sum has been increased from £50 to £100, and it is not a guarantee but a deposit in cash. Most of the people who take the children are retired people, such as school teachers, pensioners, who live on a definitely fixed income, and they have not the capital to be able to put down £50, and even if they had, they would not do so; they would throw it in the face of the Government, and say, "I am doing my best to play a decent part as an Englishwoman, as a Christian, in giving shelter to these homeless children, and yet you demand from me £50 for the right to behave as a Christian." In justice to the Noble Lord, let me say that it is not he who demands it; it is the German-Jewish Aid Committee, the body presided over by Lord Gorell at the present time.

Earl Winterton: I ought to remind the right hon. Gentleman that during the last quarter of an hour his remarks have been directed to a matter for which no one on this bench has Ministerial responsibility. I am afraid I cannot undertake to answer those remarks.

Colonel Wedgwoods: Why is not the Home Secretary here, since we are dealing with refugees? I am told that there is a representative of the Home Office under the Gallery.

Earl Winterton: I think the right hon. Gentleman does not understand my point. He is criticising one of the voluntary organisations, and while I do not want to prevent him doing so, I would point out

that there is no Ministerial responsibility in regard to the criticisms which he is making of the administration of the voluntary organisation.

Colonel Wedgwood: The Noble Lord will pardon me, I hope, but he knows perfectly well that the voluntary organisation has had imposed upon it, by the Government, the need for guaranteeing the refugees who come to this country. The Government hold the Jewish organisations responsible for seeing that these people do not become a burden on the public and do re-emigrate. This is a Government responsibility. It is true that the voluntary organisations may carry out the Government's orders and demand guarantees or deposits, but unless the Government accept the abolition of re-emigration and confer with Lord Gorell's Committee, nothing can be done. Unless the Government will permit these people to come in, nothing is done. The blame cannot be put on the voluntary organisations. There is too much of this desperate attempt by the Government to put the blame on somebody else. They are responsible for the visas and for the conditions under which these people come to this country.
I come, now, to the next question for which the Government are more directly responsible than any voluntary organization—the muddle over the Czech refugees. In Prague we had an admirable British liaison officer who in the few days, or the week or two, given to him, did his duty and attempted to get "white paper" refugees out of Czecho-Slovakia. The difficulty with which he was faced at once was that the refugees could not go to England, and there was nowhere else they could go. The delay went on. These people were refugees within the meaning of the White Paper, and they were entitled, as refugees, to £200 per family if they could get out. These people, who were passed as genuine refugees, were entitled to their share of the £10,000,000 gift; but they could not get their visas, and when the crash came, and Hitler walked in, they became fugitives. They were held up until it was too late for them to get out.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks is incorrect. A very large number of them had visas.

Colonel Wedgwood: How many?

Earl Winterton: I will give the figures later. It is quite untrue to say that they had not visas, and a very large number was able to get out.

Colonel Wedgwood: I do not understand what the Noble Lord means. Does he mean that they were given visas, or that they got out without visas?

Earl Winterton: Prior to the unfortunate events, a very large number of the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman is referring had been given visas by the British Government. The reasons they did not get out had nothing to do with the British Government.

Colonel Wedgwood: What does the Noble Lord mean when he says that a very large number of them were given visas? What was the proportion? Of the many thousands of refugees, how many got visas? I doubt whether 400 did. None of those I know got them, although some have got them since. The appalling delay—I do not know whether it was the fault of the Home Office or the Foreign Office—in issuing visas is responsible for a great many of the suicides of people in Prague during the last month. As long as there are elaborate red-tape arrangements, whereby people have to prove that they are transmigrants or prove that they are within the right ages, or, as in one case, receive a letter from an organisation demanding to know whether my bank will stand my guarantee for their financial security—as long as there are delays of that sort, and as long as visas are delayed—in spite of the best liaison work, and in spite of the refugees proving their case as refugees, some of them are in flight, some in prison, and some dead.
English money is given for the refugees and the refugees are promised money if they get out, and at the same time, they are not given visas to allow them to get out. It is the whole attitude of the Government towards these refugees that needs altering. I do not think I am doing the Noble Lord any injustice when I say that in the past he has not been celebrated for his affection for Jews. He is in charge of this business. How far do the Government take their views from him? I have always found the Home Office to be pretty good in individual cases, but it is of no use being charitable in individual cases. The Government must

realise that the people in this country who are helping the refugees are not criminals, but benefactors. The Government seem to look upon those of us who are doing something for the refugees as though we were nuisances and as though we were asking for something for ourselves. Every refugee committee in the country, and there are over 200 of them to-day, has been spending days and nights and writing endless letters trying to get refugees to this country placed where they will be looked after, and all the time we have had this desperate attitude of permanent hostility on the part of organisations backed by the Government. The attitude is reflected by the voluntary organisations, because they take their orders from the Government. How long is this to continue? How long is the good name of this country to be smirched, because the Government adopt an attitude of bitter hostility towards those who believe that we should behave like a great nation and give help where it is most needed?

1.26 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: When I hear a speech from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), I am impressed by the nobility of his character, the sincerity of his idealism, and the goodness of his heart, but also I regret to say by the incorrectness of his statements and the fallacy of almost every one of his opinions.

Colonel Wedgwood: What is incorrect?

Mr. Nicholson: Almost every figure which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave was incorrect.

Colonel Wedgwood: How much has the Baldwin Fund spent up to the present?

Mr. Nicholson: I have been closely connected with refugee work for the past four-and-a-half months. I have the honour of being chairman of the Executive Committee of the Baldwin Fund and chairman of the Board of Management of the Christian Council for Refugees and I beg the House not to accept the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures or his information. I do not mean to be offensive to him. I know his extreme goodness and the wonderful work he has done in individual cases and I say so in all sincerity, but his figures are wrong. Take,


for instance, the question of children. He said that 1,400 had been brought over, but in fact the number brought over is over 3,000.

Colonel Wedgwood: That includes those who came over before?

Mr. Nicholson: Under the Children's Movement over 3,000 have come over.

Colonel Wedgwood: The hon. Gentleman himself is giving entirely incorrect figures.

Mr. Nicholson: I leave it to the House to judge between the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself, and I make that statement for what it is worth. I am limited as to time, and there are certain things which I wish to put before the House. It is impossible to exaggerate either the vastness or the tragedy of the problem which we are facing. It is nothing less than the intended extermination of a whole section of human culture and I do not think we are facing that problem as it ought to be faced. We are appalled by the size of the problem. We must realise that it will take a considerable amount of hard clear thinking to do any appreciable good at all and if I may say so with all respect, His Majesty's Government are failing to face the fact that it will mean the provision of some finance—it may be a lot or it may be a little. We are failing to face the problem properly I think, because we are allowing the human tragedy involved in it to influence us. We are facing it in an emotional way, but what we have to do is to deal with it in a calm, cool, scientific manner.
We are not faced with the duty, and we cannot assume the duty, of solving the whole problem of the future of the Jewish race. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in one thing, that the only real solution of the refugee problem as far as Germany is concerned is to stop the persecution. You cannot get away from the fact that, in law, any country has the right to expel any section of its population as it chooses, but I think we have to take our stand on this matter by saying to Germany that she has not the right, suddenly to shovel off her problems on to other people and to expel a whole section of a population all at once without a penny in their pockets. The first thing

to be established is that the obvious solution, can only be achieved by political pressure on Germany to force her to deal with this problem in the right and civilised way. Let us, then, avoid the mistake of allowing it to be thought that we even contemplate shouldering the whole burden. If we do that, every bit of human suffering that we relieve will immediately be replaced by more human suffering, and we shall create further problems as we go along pari passu with the measures of solution which we offer.
Apart from that consideration there is the psychological effect. If any one of us is faced with an immense, a Herculean, an astronomical problem, our minds instinctively turn away from it and we burke the issue. Let us face the difficulties. They are very severe difficulties. We are faced with the existence of nearly2,000,000 unemployed of our own. I want to make it clear, however, that the cry "Help our own unemployed first"has not come from the unemployed or from the trade union movement. It is a cry that originally was artifically started by—

Colonel Wedgwood: The Fascists.

Mr. Nicholson: It has not come from the unemployed themselves, and I want to thank working-class bodies, including unemployed organisations, for the noble way in which they have helped the refugee funds. But do not let us forget that there is not an exact parallel between the Huguenots and people of that sort, and the refugees with whom we are now concerned. We are faced with the actual existence of anti-Semitism and the potential existence of much more anti-Semitism. I am stressing the difficulties because I think we have, so far, failed to face the facts of the situation. Many remedies have been suggested, but one way not to deal with the problem successfully is to allow in every Jew who applies. One way to avoid creating anti-Semitism is to have at the other end a proper system of selection of the sort of Jews to admit. An influx of Jews from Eastern Europe would naturally arouse anti-Semitism in this country, but the finest type of German Jew or, to accept Herr Hitler's terminology, of "non-Aryan" German, will not cause anti-Semitism. Therefore, there should be a careful system of selection at the other end.
I particularly beg all who try to deal with this problem to avoid being either pro-Jew or anti-Jew. The way in which we have to face this refugee problem is to do so from the point of view of our duty as Christians and as Englishmen and, at the same time to remember that Jews in large numbers are very difficult to assimilate into our civilisation all at once. Let us reduce the problem to managable proportions. The first thing we have to do is to map out what we can do and then to do it efficiently and economically. Other countries must, of course, help and I think we ought to pay a tribute to the great work of France, Belgium and Holland who have taken many more than we have and whose work is not sufficiently recognised in this country.
From my experience in the last four months I express the definite opinion that the Government are working on the right lines. I have found the Home Office exceedingly helpful. When we bear in mind the difficulties to which I have just alluded, namely, the existence of our own unemployment problem and the possibility of a large anti-Semitic movement in this country, I think the Home Office has been working with courage and efficiency along the right lines. I venture humbly to express the opinion that my Noble Friend the Paymaster-General is working on the right lines. I have a feeling that, apart from the Home Secretary, he is playing rather a lone hand in the Government in connection with this matter. I wish all power to his elbow and I assure him of my fervent support. But there is a large measure of urgency and a need for hurry in connection with these matters, not only because the refugee problem will very soon solve itself by the death of the potential refugees, but because we have to face this serious fact. Private charity will, one day, have shot its bolt. Private charity, whether it is from the Christian community or from non-Christian communities, will have come to an end—and in that connection I say with shame that we have contributed far far less to refugee funds than the Jewish community.
In spite of all that Jewry has done and of all that the Churches have done, private charity will certainly come to an end sooner or later, and at the present rate of expenditure I am afraid that it will be sooner rather than later. Then, another

matter, we are not availing ourselves sufficiently of the intellectual and technical wealth at our disposal, particularly in the medical line. We find very little help indeed from anybody in this country in placing men with amazing technical qualifications, the finest scientific research students in the world. Sometimes we could have them en bloc,the whole staff of a laboratory. The whole machine is offered us, and we cannot accept them in this country. As for ordinary doctors, I ask this House to think of the conditions in British Colonies and in India, and I feel that it is nothing short of madness on our part to fail to avail ourselves of qualified medical men, apart entirely from the industrial technicians, when one thinks of the hygiene and health conditions in those parts of the world. It is not only a question of philanthropy; it is not only a question of humanity, for we have the chance of doing a lot of good to ourselves by getting the best brains in the German Jewish community.
I want to say something about the work of the voluntary organisations in this connection. I have already paid my tribute to the work of the Jewish community in this country, who have, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, accepted the ultimate contingent liability for most of the refugees brought into this country. The Friends' organisation, which has done much valuable work on a smaller scale, also accepts the ultimate liability. The fund of which, through fortuitous circumstances which I need not recount to the House, I am myself chairman—the Baldwin Fund—together with one or two ancillary appeals, such as the special appeal of the Church of England, has raised well over half-a-million pounds in a comparatively short time, and at a time when there were innumerable other worthy causes for which demands were being made. Lord Baldwin, in his speech —as a matter of fact, it was at my special request—said that he hoped that his appeal would not prejudice any existing English charitable institutions or appeals, and I think that has been carried out. I do not think it can be charged that the Baldwin Fund has damaged any other charitable institution.
We found ourselves, to begin with, in the position of a committee charged only with raising money, but it very soon dawned on us that we had a direct responsibility to our contributors to see that


the money which they so generously gave was expended with the maximum efficiency and economy, and for that reason we very soon found ourselves involved in a sphere which was originally outside our contemplation, namely, the sphere of administration. Thanks to the machinery that we found ready and to the machinery that we have ourselves set in motion, most of the refugee relieving work and the case working organisations are housed in a central building. I do not wish to go into too great detail, but we managed to get Lord Hailey to consent to become chairman of the co-ordinating committee, and he has done wonderful work. We have struggled hard to try and secure efficiency in the case working organisations. To some extent we have succeeded, and to some extent we have failed. Where we have failed, it has not been because of any human breakdown, but because of the circumstances involved, circumstances such as the sudden rush of work, with the almost millions, certainly hundreds of thousands, of letters which have poured in. This vast problem has suddenly been thrust upon a few voluntary organisations. I think that the case working organisations, with which I have nothing to do personally, have done the most marvellous work.
At Bloomsbury House there are over 4,000 callers every day to be dealt with, and the numbers of letters which arrive and go out are in tens of thousands. I heard the other day of a refugee who had written to 83 individuals applying for help. The House can imagine what that involves in the way of correspondence at this end. So far as the expenditure of money is concerned, some £220,000 has been earmarked for the children's movement, and I may say that we make efficiency a condition of any grant. I am sorry to weary the House with details, but the money is given from the Baldwin Fund to these constituent bodies, the Council for German Jewry and the Christian Council for Refugees, and the money has to be allocated to these two councils for specific purposes by the apportionment committee, of which Lord Baldwin is chairman. We have also guaranteed all expenditure in connection with Bloomsbury House, and grants have been given to the Council for German Jewry and the Christian Council for Refugees which they have expanded in

their own way. So far from it being the case, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman imagines, that the Baldwin Fund is sitting on its money like a hen on one egg, almost all the eggs have been distributed or earmarked, and we should be very glad indeed if that fact could be made known, so that the fund might once more receive a flow of contributions.
I beg all those who have anything to do with refugee work to be very patient with the inevitable delays and inefficiency in the case working organisations. All those who have anything to do with the organisations are well aware of the maddening nature of the delays that take place and of the inevitable inefficiency that has been forced upon them. I beg them to be patient. Efficiency is being obtained, and if hon. Members knew the vast amount of work that has been and is being done, and done successfully, they would bear with us a little longer. To go back, I believe the Government are on the right lines, but I beg them to hurry, and I beg every Member of this House and the country as a whole to realise that though this is fundamentally a 100 per cent. human problem it demands cold and detached thought. We cannot ourselves in this country solve the whole problem of the future of the Jewish race, and I do not agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we can place an indefinite number of refugees in Palestine. Let us plan out what we can do, and let us do it well, let us do it efficiently, let us realise that it will take money and that it will take thought. Finally, let us realise that we have a great opportunity of enriching ourselves with some of the finest brains and abilities in the world. Let us not forget that rather selfish aspect of the problem. Since I have been connected with this refugee business, I think I can say with truth that hardly an hour goes by, day or night, when it is out of my mind. It is the most terrible example; of the breakdown of all the plans of civilisation and humanity. Let us face it with clear and scientific thought.

1.44 p.m.

Mr. Mander: One might think at first sight that recent events would tend to make the refugee situation in the world very much worse—thesituation which has arisen through the permission for gangsters to do as they will throughout the length and breadth of the globe—but I


cannot help thinking that perhaps on a longer view the recent steps adopted by the British Government in foreign policy will tend to bring to an end the terrible situation that exists and the licence for the bully to treat his citizens as he likes, to rob them and drive them out into other parts of the world. I hope the result of this re-orientation of policy will be that law and order will prevail once more and that citizens of all countries can live ordered and peaceful lives. I want to draw attention to an important statement made on Tuesday by the Secretary of State for War when he said, in reply to a question:
I have to inform the House that applications from foreign nationals will in suitable cases be considered, more particularly where the applicant can speak English and has had previous military training."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1939, col. 2606, Vol. 345.]
I urge the noble Lord to see that the matter is carried still further and that consideration is given to the cases of the thousands of refugees, as I am informed there are in this country, many of them scientists, doctors and people with high qualifications, who would be only too delighted to rally to the support of Great Britain at this moment of crisis and to offer their services. I urge that they should be assisted in every possible way in connection with our scheme of National Service. I am told that while there is great unrest in Germany at the present time, any movement of that kind in Great Britain by which German and Austrians associated themselves with us in our National Defence might have a profound psychological effect in Germany and do a great deal in that way to assist our cause.
I want to make reference to the question of voluntary organisations. I am certain that the time has come when it is wrong for the Government to rely any more wholly upon the services of voluntary societies. Too great a burden is placed upon them and the Government ought now to come in and take part in the administration. The voluntary workers have worked in the most admirable way, but they have had a task placed upon them which is not really theirs but the responsibility of the British Government. I understand that it has been decided to allocate £100,000 from the Czech loan fund, and possibly there may be something available in due course

from the Czech balances which are left over in this country. When, however, we get a situation, such as happened during the last few weeks, when decisions as to whether visas should be granted and whether certain individuals should be allowed to come to this country was left in the hands of young girls, although they did their part in a most excellent way, it is time that the Government took on the responsibility. It ought not to be passed on to voluntary organisations. The Noble Lord says that he cannot take responsibility for or reply to criticisms of voluntary organisations. That may be true, but the Government ought to accept the responsibility from now onwards and not try to get rid of a duty which is a national one and should be carried out by the Government and the State as a whole.
The other point with which I want to deal is the importance of the Government undertaking responsibility for the working out of the settlement plans in various colonies. They say they will take a sympathetic interest, or lend an official, or something of that kind, but they with all the experience at their command, ought themselves to take the responsibility for working out the plans in detail as they alone can. One has in mind particularly the case of British Guiana, where a commission has gone. Then there is the case of Tanganyika, and no doubt the Government are considering other cases; but I urge that every possible pressure from the side of the Government should be placed behind these schemes from the point of view of speed and technical efficiency. With regard to Palestine, of course large numbers of refugees ought to be sent there. It is our bounden duty and we are under international obligation to do it. I am sorry to think that the Government are still hesitating and cannot make up their mind what policy to pursue instead of sending out a large number, hundreds of thousands, over a period of years to, Palestine. Not even the 10,000 children are permitted to go there. At the same time, I appreciate that when we have done everything possible with Palestine that will not solve the problem. The number of refugees is far greater than can be dealt with there. I think therefore, that it is right to go on with the other schemes that are being considered.
Reference has been made to the case of Poland. It is true that we are


entering into close relations with Poland now, and no doubt it will involve some arrangements for assisting that country to emigrate a certain number of Jews. It may be that if in Poland as a result of recent events there is a greater measure of national unity and association of the people with the Government it might not be necessary to go so far in the way of emigration as was at one time contemplated. I hope that may be so. I trust that the Government will grasp this question with energy and imagination and will put all the drive they can into it. If they do, I am sure they will be rendering a great service to the cause of humanity and peace throughout the world.

1.52 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: I am sure the House will have benefited from the Debate on this important subject, and I hope the Noble Lord will be able to give such further reassurances as are necessary to those who are interested in this problem. It is a problem of many parts, and if I give a minute to each of them I shall carry out my pledge to finish as near 2 o'clock as possible. Perhaps I will be forgiven if I touch upon the problem of emigration from Czechoslovakia first. References have been made to-day to delay and to the failure to grant visas to people in Czechoslovakia because the organisation on the Prague side and in London was not competent for the purpose we all have in view. I saw the organisation at Prague, and I say at once that a tremendous job of work has been done on both sides by purely voluntary organisation. The House will never know the devotion and sacrifice of the workers both in Prague and in London in dealing with this problem. It would be invidious to mention names. I saw the work at Prague when it was launched, and I saw it being carried on. I have been in communication with Prague almost every day since. There are Members in the House who are familiar with the day-to-day work done there.
I will break my intention not to refer to names, and mention just one. There are English women who ought to be honoured by this House and whose names ought to be more widely known in this country, but at the risk of omitting recognition of one or other of this band of de-

voted workers, I will refer to one who has remained behind, who was there in October, and who has only left Prague for a day or two on hurried visits to this country for consultation. Miss Doreen Warrener is now in Prague, doing work which will be a monument to her capabilities and her devotion, work which I do not think any Member of this House could excel. Splendid work has been done by Miss Warrener and the other ladies associated with her in Prague. It is not an easy thing, with all the passport regulations, to improvise the transfer of a flood of people who wish to leave a country in the stress of existing circumstances. His Majesty's Consul at Prague, to whom I have previously paid a compliment, has done marvellous work, and I give him full praise for the patience and tact which he has exercised. At this end, too, it is not easy to arrange for the departure of crowds of people from Prague.
I should like to give an account of the transport difficulties, because I took part in the work for three weeks in October and at the beginning of November. It is all very well to say, "Why could not the people be got out in a week." It could not be done. It is an enormous problem. On this side it depends entirely on the voluntary services of people, mainly women again, who have done tremendous work—the Bloomsbury House, Mecklenburg Square, organisation, and the Polish Refugee Committee. The problem of accommodating the refugees in this country would never have been dealt with successfully had it not been for the immense volume and the high quality of the voluntary work carried out. But, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said, this voluntary work cannot continue unaided, because it will be inadequate for the purpose. The House should remember that we are not at the end of this refugee work, we are at the beginning of it, and I would support the appeal of the hon. Member that the Government should make provision both for the staffing of the reception committees, so that people shall be paid for their labours, and for a larger sum than£100,000 to be put at the disposal of those who are responsible for the maintenance of the refugees who have come in. This House may pass a Resolution and Members may say in their sympathy, "Let them all come


into this country; we will open our arms widely," but there must be a business organisation to provide for them and for their needs.
Next I should like to deal with the question of emigration. This week-end, this Saturday, the first group of people going to Canada under the auspices of the Czech Emigration Committee will leave. I am connected with that organisation and am happy to say that the prospects of emigration for a large number of the Sudeten Deutsch are very bright indeed. Another group will be leaving in a fortnight's time, and other groups at intervals during May and June. We hope to send a few hundred families to Canada to settle down there, to build up new homes for themselves there, and I am certain they will make splendid settlers. I know the country well, and I know the quality of the people whom we are sending out. It is really the greatest error to assume that these people are a liability to a country. We are sending an asset to Canada. Whether it be Canada or somewhere else—and I have no time to deal with British Guiana —I am sure that under the right auspices and with Government support and guarantees we can easily find room in the world for all the Jews who may be displaced in Europe.
I should like very much to say this to the House, and wish that my words may be heard outside this House in Germany and Czecho-Slovakia. If the Germans now think that they should dispense with members of that race who have served Germany so well, if they think they can afford to part company with the Jewish race in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, they should do the thing decently. They should give them time and opportunity to get away; and if that is the fiat of the Führer, if they have to go, then the rest of the world must make a fitting effort to find them new homes and new opportunities; and I hope that this afternoon the Noble Lord will give us encouragement to hope that the Evian Committee will pursue its labours and play its part, and that its part will be a decisive one, in the solution of this very great problem which concerns us all.

2. p.m.

Earl Winterton: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) for the very sympathetic way in

which he has approached this problem, and for curtailing his speech in order to give me time to make mine. There is a great deal more of interest which he could have said, because we all recognise what a very prominent and useful and, indeed, humanitarian part he has played in this problem. I think he is in the same position as I am, because I could well speak for 40 minutes or longer, but there are other Members who desire to raise other topics, and I must curtail my remarks.
I should like, also, to thank the hon. Member who initiated this Debate. Normally, I do not think it is very helpful for a Government spokesman to praise the moderation of the speech of the Opposition spokesman, because there may be some covert object in view, but here there is no party question involved, because we are all trying to do our best, according to our different points of view, to solve this terrible problem. I do not want to be rhetorical, but I must make these observations at the outset of my remarks: that, superimposed upon all the evils to which flesh is heir, some of which are unavoidable in the present state of medical and other science, we have this terrible man-made evil of the refugee problem, and no one who lives with that problem from day-to-day, as I do, can exaggerate the aggregate of suffering which it causes in mind and body. In this as in so many other respects the world to-day has returned to a scale of human woe which is medieval in its poignancy and scope, almost like the Black Death or some other great scourge of the past.
The Debate has mainly ranged round the work of the Evian Committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman, and on which I represent His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and I think I can best answer the points as to what is being done, and what has been done since the formation of the committee, to assist in the solution of this problem by quoting certain facts and figures. The Evian Committee, wisely, I think, divided countries which can help into two categories, countries of temporary refuge, those countries where there has been infiltration, like most of the Western democracies, and countries of permanent settlement where there is a sparse population and much unoccupied territory, where it was hoped the refugees could go in greater numbers.
Let me deal first of all with the countries of temporary residence. I would pay a tribute to what has been done in Holland and Belgium by private organisations, and I hope that I am giving away no secrets when I say that I understand that certain grants have been made from this country's voluntary funds to assist voluntary organisations in one of those countries in their work. Let me give a few facts. Between March, 1933, and March, 1938, there arrived in this country from Germany, classed as refugees—thefigures have been given before in Debate, but I make no apology for repeating them—4,325 men and 3,310 women. Take the situation to-day. On 28th February, 1939, there were in this country 4,674 German men, 3,663 women, 3,340 Austrian men and 2,446women, 357 Czech men and 169 former Czech women subjects. At that time there was, in addition, a total of 4,404 children in this country.
I should like to disabuse the minds of hon. Members of any misunderstanding in regard to those figures and to show that the charges that have been made or suggested in the course of the Debate, notably by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) as to the extent of the contribution of this country are not accurate and constitute a very great under-statement. The British movement for the care of refugee children brought in about 4,000 children in December and January last. It will be a little time before all those children are settled in individual homes. When this has been accomplished it is expected that yet more children will come in. From October, 1938, to 15th March this year, Sudeten-Deutsch, Austrians, Slovaks, and others were being dealt with as rapidly as possible by the British Committee for Refugees in Czechoslovakia. The German coup interrupted that process, and a number of political refugees were left in Czecho-Slovakia, unable to get out. The High Commissioner for the League, who is also director of the Evian Committee, and I, with the full support of His Majesty's Government, did everything possible to get these people out. We went to exceptional steps. I do not want to comment on the circumstances which caused this deplorable state of affairs, but it was

literally impossible to get those people out of the country. They were not allowed to go. Until 1st April, no visa was required by Czech subjects, and had the Germans not occupied Czech territory, a larger number of refugees would have been able to leave. A large number have come to this country without visas. The difficulty was that, before they could come, the Germans imposed an exit visa. The whole responsibility for the situation lies, not in the action of this country, but in the action of the German authorities. I am just going over the facts to show the extent of what we have done in what I think I may call an emergency.
I want now to deal with the permanent situation, and to say a word about the activities of voluntary organisations, and about Richborough camp. I mention these, because they support my argument that it is unfair to blame His Majesty's Government or the voluntary organisations of this country for certain things that have occurred. There is room, I understand, in Richborough camp, for between 400 and 500 more refugees than are there at the present time. It is hoped that those refugees would be people capable of being trained, but we cannot at present get them there, as they are not allowed out of Germany. I shall say a word in a moment about our discussions with the German Government, but let me go on to say one or two things about the question of infiltration, especially since the first meeting of the Evian Committee. I have already dealt with the facts of immigration into this country. The numbers both here and elsewhere are larger than many people suppose.

Colonel Wedgwood: Would the noble Lord tell us how many of these people who have come to this country are transmigrants?

Earl Winterton: I must ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to let me develop my argument. I am dealing with a most important subject.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will he tell us the figure?

Earl Winterton: I will tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in due course, but he will realise that it is difficult upon a subject like this to make a consecutive speech if one is interrupted upon different points. With regard to the


actual infiltration into various countries since the Evian Committee was held, there has been an infiltration into this country—and this answers the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's point—of a certain number of permanent residents, and into the United States of a number which by July, 1939, will probably be up to the full quota of 27,000 for the year, consisting of Germans and former Austrian refugees. In addition to that, some 13,000 have been given temporary visas which have been extended. The United States immigration may thus be taken as in the neighbourhood of 40,000. There have been similar movements into certain other South American countries. Despite the gloomy view that is held in some quarters, though not in this Debate, I believe that, given time, this problem can be solved. It is a question of time, and I urge the House and the authorities not to charge the British, United States, or other Governments with being responsible for this state of affairs. The responsibility lies elsewhere.
I hope that this democratic assembly, and every other, will try to get the Reich Government to assist in this matter, be cause without their assistance the matter is impossible of solution. For example, it is essential, if there is to be a permanent solution, that people shall be permitted to take at least some portion of their money out of Germany. I can only say that my committee, through its director, has been discussing the matter with the German Government. As is known, because it has been stated for many weeks past, our representative, then Mr. Rublee, went to Germany and discussed it, first with Herr Schacht and afterwards with Herr Wohlthat. These meetings produced certain suggestions from the German authorities, and it is hoped that the discussions will soon be resumed between Mr. Pell, the American Vice-Director of the Committee, and the German Government. If we can only get the Reich Government to agree to allow these people to come out over a period of five years and, the principal thing, to take out a portion of their wealth with them—the figure mentioned or suggested by the German Government has been 25 per cent. —

Mr. Mander: In goods?

Earl Winterton: Not necessarily. This is a technical question, but the sugges-

tion is for an equivalent of 25 per cent. of the Jewish wealth. Even when that has been done the main question is, Where are these people to go? I shall devote the remainder of my speech to this point. It is best to be entirely frank and to mention something which is unhappily pervasive and hampers the work of the Committee and of all refugee work. It is the sub-current of anti-Semitism or anti-alienism which exists in many countries. So far as it is based on absurd prejudices and an almost pathological credulity concerning the alleged evils done by the Jews, or is instigated by certain organisations, one of which exists in this country, it is a wholly cruel and evil thing. But some of it proceeds from genuine apprehension. It is thought in more than one country that refugees admitted for permanent settlement will merely enter already crowded professions or swell the existing army of retailers and middlemen. That is why I am so desperately anxious, in order to dispel these fears, to get some of these land settlement schemes actually in operation, for I believe it will be found to be the case, as in Palestine, that these Jewish refugees, if properly trained and selected, will make good primary producers.
I should like to answer one of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who did not seem to have a single supporter in this regard, by saying that the leading Jews with whom I have discussed this question share my opinion and my keenness on the subject of land settlement generally—not land settlement in one particular country. But we must have the land first in considerable quantities in countries with sparse population and undeveloped resources. It is impossible to generalise about these land settlement schemes, but what my colleagues of the Evian Committee and I have in mind are schemes large enough to give a community feeling without producing alarm in the minds of the people of the countries settled that they are going to be swamped by immigrants. I see the hon. Gentleman assenting. I should like to thank him and others who have put suggestions before me, which shall be carefully considered. These settlements would benefit the countries with which they were effected by increasing the general volume of trade and production and by


causing an inflow of capital. It is obvious that it would be impossible, on both political and economic grounds, to propose that the great bulk of these immigrants should be taken into the national life of the densely populated Western countries, but there is room for them in other parts of the world. May I give a very brief resumé of what has been done? I am saying nothing improper when I say that I have pressed, not only on the Governments of other countries but on His Majesty's Government, the extreme urgency of finding land in order to settle these people, and in this I have had every support from the Colonial Secretary. There is at present an expert mission of investigation to British Guiana, which has just finished its work. It is partly American and I should like to pay a tribute, if it is in order—I think it is— to the personal interest displayed by the President of the United States. I hope that the report of the Mission will be in the hands of the director very shortly. A mission has gone out to Northern Rhodesia, where I have considerable hope that it may be possible to bring about a settlement. The possibilities of settlement in British Nyasaland are also going to be examined by the Commission which has gone to Northern Rhodesia. Suggestions have been made about Dominica and British Honduras. They are under consideration by the Colonial Office.

Colonel Wedgwood: Tanganyika?

Earl Winterton: The difficulties about Tanganyika are of a character about which I should not like to talk too much. In more than one quarter it is not thought advisable for the Jews to go there.

Mr. Mander: The Prime Minister suggested it.

Earl Winterton: He did. The hindrance is not on the part of His Majesty's Government. An offer has been made of settlement in that country, but there is unwillingness on the part of certain Jewish organisations to consider settlement there, for very obvious reasons. It is, however, a small matter compared with the aggregate of the whole numbers. I should particularly like to mention the case of San Domingo, which has made an offer to take 100,000 settlers. I do not know why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman smiles.

Colonel Wedgwood: If the Noble Lord asks me why I smile, he must be very ignorant of the recent history of Dominica, where there has been a massacre of 100,000 Dominicans by Haitians.

Earl Winterton: Whatever views the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may hold about that, the American organisation and the American Government take a completely opposite view. At the direct request of the United States Government an expert mission has been sent there, and the preliminary reports are satisfactory. In addition to that, investigation is being made into settlement in the Philippines. I can only deplore the calamitous statement that we were inviting these people to go to malaria-ridden countries. At one time there was as much malaria in Palestine, as I know from personal experience, having had it there, as in any country of its size in the world. But that malaria is gradually being extirpated. In no case would the Committee of which I am Chairman encourage a single Jew to go to any country where he ran an undue risk from malaria. I am sure the whole House is with me in believing that these settlement schemes in different parts of the world must be investigated as quickly as possible and, if they are found to be successful, the people must be got there as quickly as possible. There must be no avaidable delay.
Although up till now I have had the assent of the House in what I have said, I am afraid that what I am now about to say will meet with less assent, but I can assure the House that, if I were not the British Government representative, but merely a member of the Evian Committee, I should take exactly the same view. The whole Evian Committee without exception is not prepared to admit the principle that they are either under a moral obligation or that it is practically possible from the point of public support in their respective countries to admit financial liability for the transfer and upkeep in the countries or for the permanent settlement of refugees. Every one of these 32 Governments is faced with unemployment difficulties. Every one of them is frightened of the possible growth of an anti-Semitic and anti-foreign feeling if it is felt that more is being done for foreigners than for their own people. There is no chance of getting an alteration in that principle.
The last thing that would induce the Reich Government to be reasonable about the amount of property taken by Jews out of Germany would be for the Evian Governments to assume liability for the transfer and maintenance of these people. Of course, there has been considerable ex gratia assistance of more than one kind by several Governments, especially by the French and British Governments. That is quite a different thing from departing from the principle but you can make qualifications. A private individual helping a friend out of some financial difficulty does not thereby acknowledge an obligation to board and house him. I would ask the House not to read into what I am about to say more than I have actually said. These settlement schemes are, I submit, a great scheme of policy, for which, if it is not conceited of me to say so, I and some of my colleagues on the Evian Committee have been primarily responsible. If these schemes, which have been so earnestly advocated, are carried out in overseas countries, no doubt the question will arise of furnishing the necessary personnel and services in order to make their administration reasonably successful. Neither His Majesty's Government nor, I imagine, any other Government, would wish to prejudge the question of their participation, or the form it should take, and, therefore, while His Majesty's Government, in common with other Governments, would be prepared to consider and are considering such schemes sympathetically in certain specific individual cases, they cannot accept, as a principle, financial liability for these movements. I desire to thank hon. Members, both opposite and on this side of the House, for the way in which they have supported my committee in its work. We are perfectly ready to listen to criticisms or representations, but we intend that this work shall proceed and succeed, and none of us will spare any efforts to make it do so.

Miss Rathbone: Could the Noble Lord give me an answer to the question to which I was practically promised an answer by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Question Time? It was whether the grant of £4,000,000 given to the late State of Czecho-Slovakia will be made available, not only for the emigration of refugees from Czecho-Slovakia, as originally intended, but for the maintenance of the refugees while they are

in this country, in view of the fact that it is impossible for the existing Czech Refugee Committee to undertake the care of refugees who have obtained emigration unless it can get help for their temporary maintenance while they are in this country? Further, may I ask whether any of that money can also be made available for administration, as the organisation is really breaking down under the stress of overwork?

Earl Winterton: I am afraid that, as I have given a pledge as to the time I would take up, I cannot answer that question in extenso, but I may tell the hon. Lady shortly what has happened. It is true that, as has already been stated, it is the intention of the Government that the unexpended balance of £3,250,000 should not be regarded as withdrawn, but that, by one means or another, it should continue to be available for the purpose for which it was originally intended, namely, to provide cost of transport and landing money for Czecho-Slovak refugees when they go to their final place of settlement overseas. I regret that I cannot go any further than that.

Miss Rathbone: Is it not going to be available for maintenance?

Earl Winterton: I am sorry that, for reasons of time, it is not possible for me to say anything further, but I understand that the hon. Lady has already had a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir A. Salter: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer promise that a reply should be given later?

Earl Winterton: I am in the difficulty that another Member is now waiting to raise another subject, but if, as the hon. Member said, a promise was given, I will, with the permission of the House, add to what I have already said. The House gave authority to the Government to guarantee a loan of £6,000,000 to the Czecho-Slovak Government. The Czechoslovak State, however, has now disappeared, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said, this sum cannot be regarded as available for refugees. If, therefore, money is taken for the purpose which the hon. Lady has in mind, it must be taken out of the other fund, that is to say, out of the unexpended balance of £3,250,000 which


remains over from the £4,000,000, and that would thereby diminish the amount available for getting people who come out of Czecho-Slovakia settled.

Mr. Grenfell: I have had rather tragic letters and telegrams sent to me about the plight of certain Spanish refugees who desire to leave the country, and who, I should have thought, might be regarded as political refugees. In addition, there is an enormous number of refugees in the South of France. Could the Noble Lord promise to confer with the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs and send to some of us some word of reply on this subject in the course of the next few days?

Earl Winterton: I am sorry that I cannot give a reply now, in view of the fact that other subjects are to be raised, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to send him a reply. I am very grateful to him for realising the situation.

RUSSIA.

2.31 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to take up just a minute or two to deal with a matter which, though small in itself, touches a much bigger issue, namely, the good relations between ourselves and the Soviet Union. For many years, both in this House and out of it, I have done what I could to promote a closer and more friendly understanding with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. On Many occasions I have criticised British Government policy for what I considered to be failures in this regard. I was surprised, therefore, to notice in the "Times" of 5th April a report of an article from "Pravda" alleging that I was a party to some plot for inciting Germany to activity in Carpatho-Ukraine. This plot—so "Pravda" alleged—the British Press wished to keep from the light. "Pravda" is entirely mistaken in its facts. In January I made a journey from the Baltic to the Danube. This journey was purely private, and was undertaken on my own initiative. It had for its purpose an objective examination of the existing situation among Germany's eastern neighbours. So far was it from being secret that I wrote accounts of it for three British papers. The study, in so far as it threw any light on one aspect of German policy, was intended to check it. My

own opinion was expressed as follows: "We must re-establish with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the cordial relations which existed at the time of the Eden visit. We must remove the belief that we are joining Germany in excluding Russia from European councils." I venture to quote this passage in order to dispel a misunderstanding. In common with, I believe, nearly all Members of the House, I earnestly desire to see the closest co-operation established with the Soviet Union, one of the most powerful friends of international law and world peace.

FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (SPEECH).

2.33 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I wish to raise a matter which was before the House at Question Time yesterday, namely, the issue to the Press on Tuesday evening of a "D" notice requesting it to refrain from publishing a speech made by the First Lord of the Admiralty on board the "Ark Royal." Before I say what I have to say, I should like to acknowledge the courtesy of the Prime Minister in being present this afternoon to deal with the matter. My hon. Friends and I thought that this was a proper subject to raise in the Adjournment Debate. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not from any wish to add to his burdens at the present time.
As the whole House knows, the First Lord made a somewhat startling speech on Tuesday evening. I am not now concerned to discuss whether it was well advised or not; in any case that is a matter on which the House, I think, has already made up its mind; but I am concerned with what followed. Hon. Members will have seen in this morning's papers a statement by a Mr. Wulf, the Press Association reporter of the speech, in which he says he was expressly informed on behalf of the First Lord that the First Lord had no objection whatever to his remarks being published; and the report of the speech, as we know, was actually included in the Empire news bulletin of the B.B.C.
That report, I understand, reached London newspaper offices at about 930 in the evening. About an hour and a half later, the Press was requested not to publish the speech, and was told to regard


this matter as covered by a D notice. We know now that this request was made by the direction of the Prime Minister. I do not think this incident should be allowed to pass without some comment from this House. A D notice is a notice issued to the Press about matters the publication of which would not be in the national interest. The term "national interest" has always been narrowly construed. In the past, I think I am right in saying, D notices have almost exclusively been applied to confidential information affecting the Services. I am informed that when such a notice is issued the Press take it that the matter is an official secret. In the past, the Press has faithfully carried out requests that have been made to it in this form, but it must be obvious that the greatest discretion must be used in issuing notices of this kind. If they are to be issued in all sorts of circumstances, to prevent the publication of matters that are not confidential, one of two things must happen: either the Press must make up its mind to ignore those notices, or this system is bound to constitute a form of unofficial censorship. I want to quote one passage from the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister:
Since it seemed to me likely to be treated, as in fact it has been treated, as a sensational matter, whereas there was no reason or foundation for any sensation, I gave directions that the Press should be asked not to publish the account of the First Lord's speech, or, if they did publish it, not to ascribe to it any particular importance. Apparently my efforts to spare the public unnecessary agitation were not altogether successful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1939; col. 2795, Vol. 345.]
I feel that that passage was singularly unfortunate. This was nothing in the nature of an official secret. It was not information which it was necessary to withhold from the public in the sense that we wanted to keep it from an alien enemy. It was to be withheld, we understand, because it seemed likely to the Prime Minister that it would be treated as a sensational matter. I have no doubt that it was not intended, but these words come perilously near to the attitude of a Government censor. The Press was to be asked not to publish this speech, not because it contained confidential information, but because the Prime Minister considered its publication undesirable on general grounds, and because he desired to spare the public unnecessary agitation.
If D notices are to be issued on these grounds the possibilities are obvious. There no doubt will be many occasions in future when Ministers will be anxious to spare the public unnecessary agitation. The House will recollect how, in a recent Debate, we discussed what happened at the time of the Hoare-Laval plan, when it was said that British correspondents who knew of the existence of the plan were asked not to publish it in the Press. No doubt there was a desire at that time to spare the public unnecessary agitation. I do not know when the Prime Minister last took down his copy of "Areopagitica." If he has done so recently, he will no doubt remember this passage, which seems to have some bearing on the situation:
Nor is it to the common people less a reproach if we are so jealous for them that we dare not trust them with an English pamphlet. What do we then but censure them for a giddy, vicious and ungrounded people, in such a weak state of faith and discretion as to be able to take nothing down except through the type of licenser. 
In these days, I think it is true to say that we are more or less hardened to shocks, and our nerves are not really so frayed that we are not able to bear the contents of a speech from the First Lord. The Prime Minister has, as I have said, a great many burdens to bear at the present time, and none of us would like to add to those burdens the task of deciding what would cause us too much of a shock over the breakfast table. This is the first time a D notice has been used in order to avoid the publication of a Ministerial indiscretion. It is not the first time recently that somewhat questionable use has been made of that machinery. There was a recent occasion when a D notice was issued to the Press, asking them not to publish the news of certain troop movements from Lichfield to London until it had been made public by the Secretary for War. It was assumed that that meant an official statement in this House, and a great many people connected with the Press were surprised when the found that the statement in respect of which no publication was permitted was made by the right hon. Gentleman at a city luncheon at the Guildhall.
The importance of the matter, as I see it, is this. We have a free Press, subject to no kind of censorship, and we regard it not as a source of weakness


to the State, but as a source of strength. But it is generally known that in certain other parts of the world they are inclined to have their doubts as to the freedom of the Press in this country. In totalitarian States, for instance, they seem to think that there is in the Government some power to restrain what shall appear in the Press, and even in the United States there are some people who are inclined to think that the silence of the Press on certain occasions—notably as regards the events that led up to the Abdication—is due to some kind of official veto. Everybody in this House knows that there is no truth in those suspicions, but it would be unfortunate if the impression were allowed to prevail in totalitarian countries, or in any other part of the world, that what appears in the Press appears in any way by leave or licence of His Majesty's Government. If we have these D notices, if we have this kind of machinery used for this kind of purpose, that is the impression we shall most certainly create. There was one other passage in the Prime Minister's reply to which I should like to refer. In answer to a supplementary question, he said:
It was because I thought the words as reported would give a wrong impression that I thought it was desirable to make that request to the Press."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1939; col. 2797, Vol. 345.]
There, again, it seems to me that that particular expression was rather unfortunate, particularly the use of the words "as reported." It has been stated in the message to the Press to which I have referred, and which appears in the newspapers this morning, that the words were reported just as they were used by the First Lord. I am sure it was not intended to cast any slight on the way the speech was reported, but that is the inference which might be drawn from the way in which the reply was framed.

2.44 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I understand the Prime Minister has an important appointment and has to leave the House in a few minutes, so I will not take up much time. Nor do I propose to discuss the speech itself, which was delivered by the First Lord of the Admiralty. It was, I think the whole House will agree, a Ministerial indiscretion, and I do not think the House will expect the Prime

Minister to accept any personal responsibility for what the First Lord said. Therefore, I, for one, do not propose to take up any time in dealing with it. But I would like to associate myself with the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). It is the method which was adopted to deal with this matter to which certain exceptions can be taken, and, even so, I, for one, realise the position in which the Prime Minister must have found himself two nights ago. and it is always easy to be wise after the event. But a question of principle arises out of this proceeding. I am informed that in most newspaper offices it is accepted that to ignore Form D is to lay the offender open to possible proceedings under the Official Secrets Act. Whether that be so or not, I understand that that is the view which is commonly held in the newspaper world. I do not express any view as to whether that is correct, except to say that everything would depend upon the facts of the particular case.
I cannot conceive that it can be argued in this case that there was or would have been any breach of the Official Secrets Act if a newspaper had published the remarks attributed to the First Lord, more especially having regard to the fact that the First Lord himself, according to some newspaper reports, made a special request that his speech should be reported. Apart altogether from the legal aspect of the case, I doubt whether any Members of this House would object in principle to such a request being made. There might be many occasions when it would be essential in the interests of the State that the Government, no matter of what complexion, should make a request to the newspapers not to publish particular statements, but that, I think, is the greater reason for restricting such appeals to cases of vital importance from the point of view of the public interest. Otherwise there is a real danger not so much of interfering with the liberties of the Press, but of appearing to interfere with the liberties of the Press. If I may use the analogy of the law, it is always considered that judges should not only administer the law, but that they should appear to be administering the law.
As my hon. Friend has said, already in the United States of America there appears to be a widespread impression that our newspapers are in some measure


under the direct control of the Government. We in this House know that that is not so, but that such suspicions should be aroused is a matter of regret to be deplored by the Press as well as by the public. I do not suggest that the Prime Minister had any idea that form D would be used—he made his position plain in his reply yesterday—but I think that the use of form D in this case was a mistake and that an explanatory communique should have been issued by the Admiralty, which, in my submission, would have been quite sufficient.
It is to be hoped that steps will be taken hereafter that form D will in future be sparingly used, so that our country will not lose its reputation for maintaining a free Press. I agree that at the same time there is an equal responsibility upon the Press to have some sense of proportion, and not to issue some of the captions and notices that they do which are tendentious in their nature, but, even so, it is much more important that we in this country should maintain in these days, when freedom and liberty are menaced in all parts of the world, the priceless boon of a free and independent Press.

2.50 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, when he arranged for the D message to be sent to the Press he arranged that such a message should be sent to the "Daily Worker"? I would also like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that any effort in the direction of trying to prevent the Press from publishing a Ministerial statement of that character would be abolutely useless, because the "Daily Worker" would never in any circumstances accept such a suggestion or such an instruction.

Mr. Gurney Braithwaite: Or publisher.

Mr. Gallacher: I can assure the Prime Minister that it would be an absolute waste of effort trying to prevent the "Daily Worker" ever publishing Ministerial indiscretions or anything that in any way would embarrass the Government. The "Daily Worker" will guarantee that it gets full publicity.

Mr. Braithwaite: What is its circulation?

Mr. Gallacher: The circulation is not the important matter. The fact that it

appears in one paper makes it essential that it will appear in the other papers.

Mr. Braithwaite: It depends who reads it.

Mr. Gallacher: I would, therefore, ask the Prime Minister whether he committed the more glaring indiscretion of trying to get the "Daily Worker" to assist him in suppressing the indiscretion of one of his Ministers?

2.52 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) began by making a very courteous reference to myself for which I am much obliged to him. I would like to say that, so far from making any complaint of having to appear here again to say a few words on this subject, I welcome the opportunity of supplementing what I said before. The hon. Member mentioned three definite points in the course of his speech, one of which was emphasised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson). The first, and perhaps the most important point, was the question of the issue of the D notice, the second was the propriety of my action in interfering at all, and the third was my use of the words "as reported" in answer to a supplementary question. As to the last one—and perhaps I may deal with it first as it is a small matter—the words were used, as the hon. Member observed, in answer to a supplementary question, and, therefore, they were not considered words, but they did give rise, I think, to a natural misunderstanding.
Let me remind the House of the circumstances under which I heard of this case. I was at a dinner at the Foreign Office which was given to the Polish Foreign Minister, and it was after dinner, and while I was engaged in conversation, that news was brought to me that the First Lord of the Admiralty had made certain observations which had given rise to a great deal of comment and some commotion. When I said "as reported," I meant as reported to me at that dinner. I did not mean as reported by the reporter. It was the last thing that would occur to me to challenge the accuracy of the report. I know how extremely competent these gentlemen are who report these things, and it was not in my mind, and certainly I know it was not in the


mind of my Noble Friend the First Lord, to challenge in any way the accuracy of the report which was made. So much for that.
As regards the use of the D notice which has been raised, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not suppose that I had been responsible for that notice. That is quite right. All I did was to give the general directions which I reported to the House, but it was clear that if those directions were to be effective they must be carried out quickly, and I suppose that it was thought that the use of this phrase—not exactly a D notice but that the message should be treated as a D notice—not perhaps a very great distinction—was thought to be the quickest way of conveying what was required. At the same time, I should like to say that the D notice has been reserved, broadly speaking for special occasions, for movements of troops, for questions of armaments or matters of secrecy in connection with military or arms questions which it is not desirable in the public interest to put into a paper. I regret that on this occasion that technical phrase was used. It was a mistake, but perhaps an excusable mistake in the circumstances. It must not be thought that there is any intention to misuse the D notice because, as has been pointed out, the D notice, if it is to be observed, as it has always been loyally observed by the Press, must not be used for purposes for which it was not intended. I think the House may take it that better care will be exercised in the future to prevent that being done.
The next question is whether I was right or wrong in what I did. Let me explain that a little bit further. What were the considerations that were in my mind? We must remember that we are in a condition of affairs where a certain tension does exist. The statement of the First Lord, as reported to me at this dinner, appeared to me to be likely to convey the impression to the public, and perhaps not only to the public in this country, that we were actually at that moment expecting some surprise attack upon our ships. I knew there was no foundation for any such supposition, and it was because I was anxious that that impression should not be conveyed to the public anywhere that I thought it was desirable, if it were possible, either not to report the

words, or, if it was too late to stop them, that, at any rate, the words should not be given that interpretation which seemed to me might reasonably be given to them, when in fact there was no foundation for it. That was the justification for what I did. Hon. Members may still think I was mistaken in taking the action I did, but one has to make up one's mind quickly at times, and, looking back upon the circumstances I think that if they were repeated I should do the same thing again. That is all that I can say.

Mr. Mander: May I ask the Prime Minister to deal with one question? Why was the D notice on this occasion which is most unusual, sent to representatives of the foreign Press as well as members of the British Press?

The Prime Minister: I mentioned that the D notice was not issued, but the request was made that it should be treated as though it were a D notice. I imagine that it was thought that this was the best way of dealing with a very urgent case, and of emphasising the desirability of complying with the request, and nothing more than that. That does not alter what I have said as to the object of my action.

POTTERY AND EARTHENWARE INDUSTRY.

2.59 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I desire to raise a question affecting an important industry in this country, which has not received from the country and the House the attention which it ought to have received. Let me make it quite clear that I never expected a representative of the Board of Trade to be present this afternoon. All that I desire to do is to place on record some facts and to back up those facts with some observations, and to appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary for Overseas Trade, and the Department of the Board of Trade during the Recess, and in the first few days after the Recess, to give attention to the facts that I have put forward, and the appeal that I make. I propose to put down a number of questions later in order that action may be taken upon the question that I am raising to-day.
When the President of the Board of Trade was dealing with the position of the cotton industry, the "Manchester


Guardian" made use of the following statement.
At this stage it is not much use arguing first principles. The important thing is to get some sort of rational organisation in the cotton industry, and—the Government and the industry being what they are—the Bill offers the only practicable way of getting it while there is an industry left to organise.
It is with that statement in view that I desire to raise the question of the position of an industry for which I have a certain amount of responsibility, because I represent in this House the area in which it is situated. I wish to deal with the pottery and earthenware industry. From time to time the position of the cotton industry has been dealt with, the mining industry, transport and other industries, but the industry for which I am speaking has not received the attention of the Board of Trade and the House that it ought to have done. There are employed in that industry in the country approximately 75,000 workpeople, of whom 67,000 are employed in North Staffordshire alone. Seventy-five per cent. of the total output of the pottery industry is produced in one concentrated industrial area in North Staffordshire. The condition of this industry is very important for the economic life of that area, for the shopkeepers, the municipalities and the whole of the people living in the area. It is with that in view that I raise the queston to-day.
Research and invention have been devoted in this country to improving the position of this industry. Very highly skilled people have been drawn into the industry, and the municipalities have spent a great amount of money in playing their part in encouraging the workpeople to develop their minds so far as art is concerned. The factories have been and are being modernised, and we have now reached the stage of perfection in the production of our products that they are a delight to all who see them. The principal municipality in this area is that of Stoke-on-Trent, and the municipality and the Pottery Committee of the Council for Art and Industry have played their part in improving the products and providing educational facilities for art and research. That is the background of the question that I am bringing before the House.
I want to deal very briefly with the changed conditions of world trade. We cannot afford to carry on in this country

in the same way we have done from 1830 to 1930. We are living in a completely changed world, as a result of the economic developments that have taken place and new social forces are gathering strength arising out of these economic developments. Since 1934 a new alignment of forces, both political and economic, have been brought about, as a result of these changes, and there will be very serious consequences to this country unless we take adequate steps to deal with the effect of these forces on industry. So far as this country is concerned we have no aggressive intentions, but we have been forced to embark on a huge expenditure on our armed Forces in order to equip ourselves to defend this country in the event of an international emergency. I contend that we should apply the same policy to the economic condition of the industries of this country if we are to hold our own in the future.
It must be remembered, also, that this country is a relatively small island, with a huge population, dependent on its export trade, and which has built up, after years and years of development, a relatively high standard of living. While not reaching so high a standard as some of us hope may yet be reached, it is, nevertheless, a higher standard than that which obtains in many other parts of the world. Therefore, those who represent industrial centres want the Government to take action in order to safeguard our standard of living, and, if possible, to improve upon it, in order that we may further develop the social services of the country. We are all involved in this and it is most important that, just as we have dealt with other industries, we should also endeavour to deal with those which have not yet received much attention. In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Cotton Industry Bill it was stated:
It is proposed to set up a Cotton Industry Board, with certain powers and functions for securing the better organisation of the industry, a Representative Advisory Council of the industry to advise the Cotton Industry Board, and an independent Cotton Industry Advisory Committee to advise and assist the Board of Trade in matters relating to the industry.…
Clause 20 provides for a contribution from the Exchequer towards the expenses incurred by the Board under this head, for five years beginning with 1940.
My purpose in calling attention to that is to point out that if it is right to apply that principle to the cotton industry it is


equally right to apply it to other exporting industries of this country, and, therefore, I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade why, if the principle is correct, leave other industries alone until they get into the state in which the mining industry is and in which the cotton industry is. Has not the time arrived when the principle of that Bill, if it is correct, should be applied to other industries in order that they may be safeguarded and improved upon wherever possible. In the pottery industry we have suffered from price-cutting for years and years. It has had a serious effect on manufactures and a very deadening effect on the workpeople. We have been struggling as individual units against most highly organised competition, which in many cases receives a State subsidy, with which individual units cannot compete. I have in mind two individual firms who have been seriously affected by long hours and low wages and, therefore, we are bound to be concerned about the position.
In addition to that we are finding increasingly throughout the world that more and more trade restrictions and the effect of subsidies on the cost of production, is having a serious effect on the industry for which I am speaking. Millions of pounds have been voted by this House to back up industry in this country in various ways, and I ask: Has not the time arrived when the Board of Trade should more and more take the initiative to organise industry into industrial units, in order to get scientific State intervention in connection with the export industries of this country? A few days ago, the President of the Board of Trade stated that the Government were going to make grants to the shipping industry. These included £2,750,000 a year for five years for tramp shipping, £500,000 a year for the encouragement of shipbuilding, £10,000,000for loan purposes, and £2,000,000 for the purchase of old vessels. I am not speaking critically of this, because I think that owing to the serious situation we are in and the stage of development at which we have arrived, it is necessary that something of this character should be done. What I am pointing out is that these subsidies, grants and loans have to be borne, to a certain extent, by the industry for which I am speaking, and it is not right to give treatment of this character to certain industries

while industries of the sort for which I am speaking have to struggle on as small units.
One reason I raise this matter is that I saw a statement in the "Manchester Guardian" on 2nd April that Germany was preparing to allocate some £40,000,000 for the promotion of Germany's foreign trade. Germany has taken over the Sudetenland. The Sudeten-landers are very fine people, having some fine craftsmen in the industry with which I am concerned. About 12 months ago, I had the honour of taking a few of these people round the House, and they spoke in glowing terms of our procedure and of our ways of life in this country. The productive capacity of the industry in the Sudetenland is very great, and I have seen that Germany is taking a bigger proportion of the clay and minerals which this industry needs. They are going to use them in the Sudetenland. 'Therefore, hon. Members will realise why some of us are very much concerned about the growth of State subsidies to industries of this sort, and the proposal to spend £40,000,000 in giving a fillip to Germany's export trade.
I would point out that the pottery industry in this country has received no financial assistance. I do not ask for such assistance, but I do ask that facilities shall be granted for them to have the same facilities as other industries in regard to the fixing of an economic level of prices in order that the economic position of the industry may be improved. I want to place a few facts on record in order that they may be examined. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) will give me a little support if he thinks this case is being built up on correct principles, in order that we may be associated in this appeal to the Board of Trade. I have in my possession statement made by representative people in the industry. First of all, Colonel Howson, of the firm of Messrs. George Howson and Sons, in addressing a meeting of the Pottery Managers' Association on the position of the pottery and earthenware industry, said that, while the pottery industry was one of the oldest skilled trades, the sanitary pottery section had become important only with the development and improvement of sanitation and the efforts for better health, comfort and well-being of the community. He went on to say


that the sanitary earthenware trade was going through a rather quiet time at the moment owing to the European troubles which had upset the export trade. They were also faced with tariff barriers which, in some cases, seemed to be insurmountable.
He also pointed out that foreign competition was serious because it was the easiest-made and most profitable articles that were turned out by the foreigners who were very cunning in the marketing of their wares. Indications of foreign origin on articles were very often placed where they could not readily be seen. He added that many people would be surprised to know the large amount of foreign ware that was sold even in the Potteries. Mr. Tom Simpson, chairman of the National Pottery Council recently addressed representatives of the industry on selling prices and wages in the industry. He said that the pottery manufacturers had resorted to cut-throat competition which had serious effects upon the industry. He went on to say—and I wish that the OFFICIAL REPORT would put this in black type, in order that the Board of Trade may take note of it because it is the core of the question— that the prosperity and welfare of the industry did not lie in voluntary agreements alone, but in the establishment of agreements which would be legal and binding. I contend that the Board of Trade ought to take the initiative in organising the industry so that these agreements will be made legal and binding. Finally he said that all industries should bear their fair share of the country's burden. If an industry could not do it then the necessary machinery should be put into operation to ensure that that industry would be run on a sound basis, for the good of all employed in it and the nation as a whole.
Those are respresentative opinions which I want to put on record in order that the Board of Trade may see that I am not raising this question as an individual. The figures of Empire imports are very interesting. I find that in 1937 Canada imported £712,083 worth of china and earthenware from Great Britain and £151,371 worth from foreign sources. South Africa imported from Britain £177,119 worth and from foreign sources £139,446 worth. Foreign competition is not only affecting the market in this country but is making serious inroads in our

Dominions and Colonies. I find that Great Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand together bought a total of £2,039,278 worth of British goods and imported £1,588,923 from foreign sources. That applies only to five countries in the Empire—while the total unemployed in the industry in this country in February, 1938, was 18.8 per cent. and in 1939, 27.7 per cent. Had there been time, I should have got more facts put upon record, but I propose to send these statements on to the Board of Trade in order that they may be examined there. I will content myself by putting on record that the ratio of imports to the total home consumption in 1933 was 7.85 per cent., whereas in 1937 it was 25.76 per cent. These figures are indicative of the trend of trade in the pottery industry.
When the Cotton Bill was going through the House, Members on both sides were concerned about the parasitical position in many cases of the merchants. I have in my hand a circular sent out by merchants in Manchester which makes use of the following phrase:
These beautiful examples of native workmanship are offered at a price within the reach of most people, only because the cost of living in India is so low and the native is content with very little remuneration.
Here is another one, sent out by merchants:
Large supplies (of sanitary ware) are coming through weekly from the Continent, and to eliminate any delay in the delivery of your order, we strongly advise you to let us have your specification at your earliest opportunity.
We cannot afford any longer to tolerate this kind of thing in this country. If we are to hold our own against the fierce competition which we have to face from industries organised with State backing and State control in many cases, we cannot afford to go on in that way. The pottery industry has also been affected by the serious manipulations in many cases of the departmental stores. The manufacturers, after pooling their accumulated experience, in most cases can earn only 6 per cent. on their capital, whereas we find in the departmental stores 20, 30, and 40 per cent. and bonus shares being paid out year after year, just for handing this material over the counter. The people who are responsible for making the material, the manufacturers of it, average


only 6 per cent. on their capital. and our people are not getting out of the industry what they should, with the result that we are getting into a very serious position.
As a result of the good feeling in the industry, the trade unions have negotiated reforms such as holidays with pay, and the Home Office is more and more paying attention to the industry in order to prevent the development of silicosis, which has had such a serious effect upon our people during the last 100 years. As a result of the action taken by the Home Office, this disease is more and more being eliminated. The point that I wish to make is that the Board of Trade will have to pay attention to the industry if it is to be served with that attention which the Home Office is devoting to those industrial diseases from which we have suffered for so long.
In conclusion, I would appeal for some constructive action to be taken, and I would suggest, first of all, that the President of the Board of Trade should instruct a number of his advisers, particularly those whose duty it is to be familiar with this section of industry, to examine the state of the industry, and that then he should meet representatives of the industry, with a view to calling a conference of the whole of the industry, in order that it can be organised on a basis of co-operation, to eliminate internal competition, to equip itself to be able to hold its own in foreign competition, to improve output, and at the same time to play its part in improving the economic position of the country as a whole. Although I did not expect a representative of the Board of Trade to be present to-day—I want to make that clear—I expect them to examine the statement I have made and to consider what can be done, and, if possible, take action on the lines I have set out.

ROYAL NAVY (ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS).

3.26 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: On 15th February last I addressed a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to an examination held under the auspices of the Board in November for certain vacancies in Naval cadetships in the Paymaster's branch. I put down a question because my attention had been

drawn to the experience of a youth from my constituency who entered that examination and who did not, as my investigations have tended to prove, receive fair treatment. I raised the question then, as I am taking the opportunity of raising it to-day, at the request of the headmaster and the board of governors at the boy's school. Since then I have discovered that this complaint is becoming rather general. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), with whom I got into touch, will take the opportunity of placing before the Parliamentary Secretary a complaint of the same kind. At a time like this, when appeals are going forth from this House to every section of the community to rally for national service, it is of the utmost importance that every appointment should be made upon merit alone and that there should be fair play for every applicant for a post, wherever the applicant comes from and to whatever class of society he belongs.
This youth first sat for a written examination according to the regulations, and he came out 18thon the list. He had an aggregate of 862 marks, and in two difficult subjects, physics and chemistry, he had 92 per cent, of possible marks. That shows that this young man, so far as intellectual ability and quality of mind are concerned, is a very good student, and the fact that he came out 18th on the list shows that, other things being equal, he was entitled to a place. In addition to the written examination, there was an oral examination. I gather from the regulations that this is composed of two parts. The board of interviewers are expected to take into consideration the school record of the applicant when giving him marks for his performance at the interview. The purpose of the interview is to enable the board to judge by personal appearance and the interview whether the applicant possesses the qualities of leadership and personality which are desired. This is his school record, not from the point of view of his intellectual attainments, but from the point of view of whether he shows qualities of leadership:
He is an outstanding boy who commands respect and is a leader among his fellow pupils. He is a school prefect, a very prominent player in the school Rugby XV, of which he has been captain. a member of the cricket XI, and an all-round athlete. He has capacity for leadership and would seem to be the type who would make an excellent officer in the Navy.


That is the headmaster's testimony to this boy. Since my attention was called to the case I have interviewed the boy myself, and I confirm fully that testimony of his headmaster. On that school record alone I think this boy deserved very serious consideration at an interview.
The second part of this examination was an interview before the Board. The purpose of this interview, I presume, is that the applicant will appear before the board of examiners, that they will question him, and through that interview be able to assess his qualities of leadership and personality. To begin with, the interview lasted less than five minutes. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, or anyone else who has had experience of public life, whether he really thinks that a board can assess at their true value the qualities of leadership in a youth who appears before them for less than five minutes. During those five minutes he was asked a number of questions. The first question was, "What school do you come from?" The boy replied that he came from a certain county school, as it is termed in the part of Wales from which I come—what, I suppose, is more generally known as a secondary school. Then he was asked, "What school is it?" The boy said it was a mixed school. Whether mixed schools, or separate schools for boys and girls, are the better is a matter of opinion. In areas like ours it is a case of "Beggars cannot be choosers." We have to take what there is. The boy said that when he gave that reply he detected a note of contempt in the remark, "Mixed schools. I gather they are quite common in Wales." Perhaps the boy was over-sensitive, as Celtic people are, but he thought he detected some contempt in the reference to the word "Wales."
Another question was, "What books do you read apart from your school books?" The boy said, "Apart from my school books I prefer to read biography." He was asked, "What are you reading now?" and told them he was reading "The Autobiography of a Super Tramp," by W. H. Davies. The interviewer said, "What is he? I have never heard of him." We feel that for those of us who live in Wales, or in this country, to show ignorance of that great lyrical poet, perhaps the greatest lyrical poet of this age, would be deplorable. If I had been asked that question and the inter-

viewer did not know W. H. Davies, I should have replied in these words from one of Davies's own poems:
What is this life if, full of care,
There is no time to stand and stare?
A further question asked was, "What papers do you read?" The boy said what papers he read, and then he was asked about games and athletics. The whole interview lasted only five minutes. In the written examination this boy was eighteenth out of the whole list. He has greater intellectual capacity, based upon that examination than, 79 out of the 89 successful applicants. The written examination was the real test of his ability. This boy was unsuccessful in the interview. How did he become unsuccessful? The position is that both in the written examination and in the interview applicants must obtain a minimum number of marks before they pass. This youth was far above the minimum required in every subject in the written examination; he was nearer the maximum than the minimum. In the interview, however—I must point out that his application could not succeed unless he received 50 marks—he was granted 40 marks, 10 below the minimum required for a pass. The board judged his quality upon his school record and upon his performance in an interview which lasted less than five minutes and in which he was asked the questions which I have reported to the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary has sent me a list of the successful applicants, and I have been examining it. All but six of the applicants were from what we call public schools. In an examination open to the schoolboys of this country such a record cannot be justified in view of the standard of education in the secondary schools. As a matter of fact, complaints are becoming general among a certain section of opinion that the secondary schools have outstripped the public schools of this country. Let me give one or two examples, by way of comparison, from this list. A candidate from a public school which has a fee of 100 guineas a year sat for this examination. In the written examination he secured 575 marks as compared with the 862 of the applicant from my division, but in the interview, whereas my applicant had 40 marks, this applicant secured 380 marks. Another applicant who went in for the written examination got 588 marks,


nearly 300 below the applicant from my division, but in the interview he had 350 marks. How did these two public school applicants get those extraordinary marks for the interview when they had been hopelessly defeated in the written examination? The suggestion made is that they were given those marks at the interview in order that they might be brought in.
There are the facts. I have since heard that this complaint is so general that it was referred to at a conference of headmasters of secondary schools held recently. An official representative, called, I think, a liaison officer, of the Services attended the conference and appealed to the headmasters to use their influence to encourage their boys to enter the Services. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that the liaison officer was a very well known figure in the life and literature of this country, and that he was given a very uncomfortable time as headmaster after headmaster got up and asked how he was to encourage his boys to enter the Services when they got this kind of treatment. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to treat this as a very serious matter, because when we are standing for democracy it is essential that every trace of snobbery and class distinction should be removed from the Services. I would conclude with a sentence from the letter of the headmaster who brought this case to my attention. The letter says:
A board which is unable or unwilling to find more merit than 40 marks in a candidate of this type and ability is not functioning in the best interests of the Navy and the State. Justice will not be done at these interviews until the boards are compelled to deal with the candidates purely as individuals and prohibited from making inquiries about their schools, the particular newspapers they read, and other particulars which give information as to the particular stratum of society to which they belong.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take a serious view of this question and that, as the result of raising the matter to-day, changes will be made to ensure that fair play is given to every boy who enters for these examinations, wherever he comes from.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Quibell: I think my hon. Friend has adequately covered the main grounds of the complaint. I have a similar complaint, and I think he will agree, having looked at the papers, that it is an even

more outrageous case than the one upon which he has addressed the House. The boy had been educated at the Aston Grammar School, Market Rasen. He is a fine big boy, between 16 and 17 years of age, standing close on six feet and weighing about 12 stone. He is a good representative Lincolnshire man, and I am proud of him. He made application to enter the Naval Air Arm. His father brought him up, and he had his interview and went through the usual examination. He felt, when he came out, that one answer that he had given to a question had proved fatal. They asked him what his father was. His father is a motor engineer who for some years has been getting his living by bus driving. The boy felt that that answer had made an end of his chances of getting through. The father served in the War and is now serving as an officer in one of our voluntary forces, and has been ever since the War. His brother is serving in the Marines, and all the family are in one way or another rendering service to the country.
The father feels that his boy has been given a raw deal, because his attainments at school are of the very highest and his schoolmaster and those who know him best give him the very highest and his schoolmaster and those who know him best give him the very highest character. I have known the family for a number of years, and I could not speak too highly of them. They are hardworking people and, if that is a failing in an application for a post like this, he would have to plead guilty. I did not want to bring the details of the case before the House. I took other steps to see whether there could not be a re-examination of the facts. These brass hats, sitting as a board, are trying the very lives of the boys, and the impression prevails that, though a boy may have gone to the Aston Grammar School, if he comes from a poor home and does not wear the old school tie, his chances are very small. Some consideration ought to be given to the matter. I hope the Minister will take note of what has been said with reference to these two cases and will see that the regulations are altered.

3.45 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): No complaint can be made of the very moderate


way in which the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) have raised two cases that have come to their own notice. Knowing the interest that they take in their constituencies, one would naturally expect them to be interested in such boys. I think it will be better if at the start I explain briefly to the House the general principles that govern the Navy in the selection of candidates for appointment as officers. The case to which the hon. Member referred was that of an applicant under what is known as the special entry scheme. For that purpose three examinations are held every year, in November, March and June, and the age of an applicant must, at the date of his examination, be between 17 years and 18 years eight months. If he fails in his first examination, he can enter for the others, so that he has in fact five chances of coming before the interviewing board.
The interviewing board is convened, not by ourselves, but by the Civil Service Commissioners, who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are entrusted with the very difficult task of selecting candidates, not only for the Fighting Services, but for most posts in the Civil Service. The interviewing board may include members who are Civil Service Commissioners; there is a civilian chairman, who is either himself one of the Civil Service Commissioners or some civilian appointed by them. In this case I happen to know the chairman, having worked with him for many years, and he is a broad-minded senior civil servant of great experience in this kind of work. Each of the Services sends its own representatives quite apart from the civilian element. In the case of the Navy, side by side with the civilian element we have an admiral and a captain, and, if the applicant wishes to join a non-executive branch of the Navy, they are assisted by a specialist officer—for instance, an engineer-captain if the applicant desires to join the engineering branch, or a paymaster-captain, or an officer of the Royal Marines. Candidates must have passed their school certificate examination, or an examination of some equivalent standard, and, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the examination consists of two parts. There is a written examination, carrying a total of 1,350 marks, and there is an interview, carrying a total of 400 marks. In order

to qualify, a candidate must get for the interview not less than 50 marks out of 400, and for the written examination 75 marks out of 300 in, I think, mathematics and science.
This interview board has before it the school record of the applicant. This is from the headmaster, in the normal case. It deals with such questions as the personality of the boy, his gifts of leadership, his conduct at school, and, generally, his educational attainments. It is important, as the House will realise, to have a continuity of selection, and that has been achieved by making the Civil Service Commissioners the agents for the Government. They spend their time almost exclusively at this very difficult task of selecting candidates. In order to improve and perfect this continuity, we are appointing an Admiralty civil servant to strengthen the naval element of the interview board, and we are also appointing as our representative a flag officer on the retired list, so that he can serve on that committee for a number of consecutive occasions, and will not suddenly be called away, as might happen with a flag officer on the active list. In those two respects, I think we shall get a certain improvement.
There are one or two general considerations to which I should like to refer before I come to the particular case. The first is that applicants are seeking to join a Service which I think is the greatest Service in the world, with, I think, the highest standard in the world. They are seeking to join a corps of officers known throughout the world, not only for their fighting qualities but for their diplomatic qualities. Around the Spanish coast and the Chinese coast the diplomatic qualities of these officers in peace-time are almost as important as their fighting qualities in war-time. I think the whole House will agree how extraordinarily well young lieutenants and lieutenant commanders by themselves have acted in situations where they cannot refer to senior officers, and have had to take decisions, to deal with foreign Powers, in situations which sometimes baffle ambassadors and consuls. The House will realise why it is so essential to maintain a very high standard. No one will wish to lower this standard.
The question now arises: Is this election board biased in the selection of candidates


by considerations of class? I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an anachronism to assume that suitable applicants for these positions are confined to boys from a few well-known public schools. One should seek raw material from every field of the economic and social life of the country. But there are one or two considerations which must be borne in mind in connection with all applicants for any position, whether it is a post in business or in any of the Services. However good the boy may appear to his headmaster, he may come from quite a small school. It may be a good school, but the boy may not have had the same testing time as had the captain of another and much larger school where the competition is much keener. The only persons who can judge of the suitability of an applicant who comes up with a good reputation for athletics or sport from a small school and another boy who comes from a large school are the members of the interview board themselves.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the schools from which successful applicants come are limited almost exclusively to the older public schools, which, in the common jargon are associated with "the old school tie." I have the list here. I find that there are 75 schools of the headmasters conference, of which 20 are grant-aided secondary schools. There are, in addition, grant-aided secondary schools not included in the conference, and non-grant-aided secondary schools. As regards the Air Branch to which the hon. Gentleman referred, out of 108 successful applications, the headmasters' conference schools were represented by 36, grant-aided secondary schools by 42, and secondary school's not aided by nine. They came, not from the old public schools to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but from schools which had sprung up since the reorganisation of the education system.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The distinction which I made generally was between the publicly owned and controlled grant-aided schools and public schools which are really private schools. The hon. Gentleman has given the number of successful candidates from certain private schools, but will he give also the number from other private schools?

Mr. Shakespeare: One of the most difficult things in the world is to define what is a public school or a secondary school. The border line is very difficult to draw. Anyone with any knowledge of education who examined the lists of schools could say frankly that they covered in the main not only the public schools, but grammar schools, grant-aided schools, and, in fact, secondary schools of every description all over the country. I really do not think that the hon. Gentleman has made good his argument. There are two other factors which are causes of disappointment when an applicant comes up for examination. A boy's chance of success must depend to some extent on the number of vacancies in the branch at the time of the application, in relation to the number of applicants. Naturally, it must be a disappointment when one does not succeed. Speaking from our own experience, how many of us when we have failed have consoled ourselves by telling our friends that there was an unusually large number of applicants.
There is another factor which is common knowledge. Boys, good boys, brilliant boys, do not always make the best of themselves in examinations, especially in oral examinations. I am speaking from memory of 10 or 15 years ago, but I seem to remember that the late Lord Curzon was very disappointed in his examination for "Greats" at Oxford that he only got a second class, when he had worked for a first class. For some extraordinary reason, despite his brilliant attainments, he got only a second, and he made this note in his diary, or something like it:
I shall spend the rest of my life showing how wrong the examiners were.
He certainly did. It is the same with boys who come up for examination. They may be nervous, temperamental, and they do not always make the best of themselves.
Having explained the general principles that govern the choice of boys for these places and the conditions which.apply to the candidates, I turn to the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member. He said that certain questions were put to the boy. It does not follow because a certain question was put that the questioner did not know the answer. The whole point is to get the applicant to talk.

Mr. Bracken: Will the hon. Member direct his mind to this point? The boy was asked, "What is your father?" If the examiner knew what the boy's father was, why did he ask the question? What is the reason for asking such a question?

Mr. Shakespeare: I should have thought the reason was obvious. If I had been asked what my father was, I should have felt perfectly at home and should have begun to speak about him. You need to choose questions which put the boy at his ease, so that he can talk freely. I am not on the board, nor is my hon. and gallant Friend; and perhaps these are very good omissions. We must lay down a general principle and assume that experienced persons will do their job as best they can. They probably do it better than we would, because they do nothing else. They are always interviewing boys.
I do not want to say anything in any way to prejudice the career or the position of the boy who is known to the hon. Member. All that I can say is that, from an examination of his record, I should say he has in front of him a brilliant career. What happened to him and to 200 others, is that, compared with other applicants, they were not considered as good for the post of naval officers. I wish it were possible to read to the House the confidential reports that one gets from our representatives on some of these selection committees. That is not possible because it would create a very bad precedent, but if I could do so, the House would see at once that no question of class prejudice comes in and no question of a particular school comes in. The only consideration that influences the members of the selection committee, or the main consideration, is, Will this particular boy, on his record, his personality, his mental capacity, his general make-up and outlook, be able when trained to take his place in the finest corps of officers in the world? That standard is very high, and we intend to keep it high.
I cannot completely satisfy the hon. Members, but I hope I have said sufficient to allay any suspicions in the House and in the country that any other consideration than the merits and qualifications of the individual are taken into account and that his school, his old school tie. do not come into the consideration at all.

Sir Patrick Harmon: If it is true, as the hon. Member has said, that the interview with this candidate lasted only five minutes, can the hon. Member say whether an interview of five minutes enables an examiner to determine the character and qualifications of a candidate? The boy got only 40 marks, whereas in the paper examination he got 80 marks. Will the hon. Member say whether an examining body or interviewing body can give a clear and honest opinion of any candidate after a five minutes' interview?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am in rather a difficulty, because I do not know how long the boy was there.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Less than five minutes.

Mr. Shakespeare: I cannot give an answer, but I will make further inquiries and let the hon. Member know. We have complete confidence in the body which performs this duty, and I hope I have said something which will reassure the hon. Member that we are working this system in a democratic manner and giving reward where it is due.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is more than the case of this one boy. It is essential that the system should not only satisfy the hon. Member, myself or the boy, but that it should satisfy the headmasters of county schools who are doing a fine piece of work for the country. They may be getting fair play, but they donot think they are. Is it possible for the hon. Member or the Board to meet these headmasters through their organised associations and discuss the matter with them? Will he arrange for some contact with the headmasters of these secondary schools and the Board of Admiralty, so that their suspicions shall be removed and they can be satisfied that they are getting fair play?

Mr. Shakespeare: I will certainly consider it.

EUROPEAN SITUATION.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Amery: The tail-end of a holiday adjournment Debate does not offer exactly an alluring prospect of raising an issue of general policy. All the same, I think it would be wrong, at a time so grave as the present, if one or two voices were not raised in order to draw attention to the implications of our present foreign


policy and of the foreign situation in the sphere of defence. In the last few months the dangers which confront us have multiplied in many directions. The consequences which we have drawn from these dangers in the field of foreign policy themselves constitute new and most formidable commitments. The question we are bound to ask ourselves, and the House is bound to ask itself, is whether the preparations made by the Government to meet these dangers and to honour our commitments, are in any sense commensurate with our present national policy. Let me remind the House what those dangers and commitments are. We have, to begin with, those which directly affect our own Naval and Imperial position in the Mediterranean. We understand—and I suppose it will be confirmed before long—that General Franco is joining the Anti-Comintern Pact. We may hope that in the eventuality of any international conflict, Spain may stay neutral, but at the same time we should be foolish if we ignored the possibility of danger to Gibraltar, of danger arising from Ceuta, opposite Gibraltar, and of the possibility of danger to our whole Naval position created by the holding of the Balearic Islands by a potentially hostile Power. We have to consider the position in Malta. A position, possibly even more serious, might arise to Egypt and Palestine if hostile forces should concentrate there. All those are commitments which, apart from our air and sea preparations, would inevitably call for a very considerable exercise of military force.
Over and above that, we have our commitment to France, and the French Alliance is by common consent an indispensable element of our security to-day. That commitment was serious enough in any case. It has not been made less serious by developments in Spain. Over and above those commitments, for which our preparations, I venture to say, have been quite inadequate in the past, we have now undertaken the most formidable commitment of all, our guarantee to Poland. May I remind the House of one essential difference between that guarantee and our guarantee to France? In the case of France, the help we might give is essential for the purpose of enabling France to defend herself. Success in mere defence would attain its object. In

the case of Poland, at any rate so far as we are concerned, the only chance of fully honouring our obligation, in the event of war, would be if our opponents were so completely crushed that at the end of the war they had to surrender any attempt upon Poland and give up any territory which they might have occupied. It is a much more serious undertaking that we have given in respect of Poland, from the military point of view, than anything we have given hitherto.
We are bound to ask ourselves what is the military force which we have behind these commitments, and, more particularly, what is the military force we shall have available at the outbreak of war, the vital moment, the moment when everything may be decided one way or the other. What is the force we shall have available then? Let us face the actual facts of the situation. There is a force of, perhaps, five Regular Divisions. That is all we shall have—I am pot quite sure we shall have even that—available at the outbreak of war. Whether any of that force will be available to help France, I am not sure. The other commitments of which I spoke might quite easily absorb the best part of five divisions. The forces of potential opponents in that part of the world, in the Mediterranean, certainly amount to a great deal more than five divisions; and therefore, we cannot with any certainty reckon upon assisting France at the outbreak of war with anything like five divisions.
I may be told that we are going to raise a great new force. Such terms are very relative in the world of to-day. The new force may be a great force, relative to what we have done in the past, but it will be very small, relative to the forces with which we shall have to deal. This so-called great force is to consist of a further 13 Territorial Army divisions, making 26 divisions altogether. Now it is essential that we should face the facts about this. I hope we may get the men. I hope that the patriotism of this country, even under the averse conditions of so-called voluntary service, will find the men prepared to join. But what is the position to be when it comes to the outbreak of war? Will any of these divisions be ready to take the field? Of course not. To send troops with the kind of training which it is possible to get in spare time—anoccasional evening's


drill and a week or two in camp—to send troops with that amount of training, to face trained armies with modern equipment would just be massacre. It would be a crime against the nation to dream of sending these troops into the field for at least two or three months after the outbreak of war—two or three months during which the fate of Europe and the British Empire might be decided.
That is one aspect of the matter. Again, it would be criminal to send troops into the field if there were no reserves behind them. Has anything been done to provide reserves for any of these Territorial divisions? We know quite well that there are neither reserves nor cadres in which trained reserves are being provided. Is it not perfectly obvious that so far as a force available at the outbreak of war is concerned, these 26 Territorial divisions are just eyewash? They may form a nucleus for training, for sending divisions to the front some months after war has begun, but that is all. They will not be available at the outbreak of war. Those of us who urge the principle of universal liability for service have been told, "Your ideas can only be developed after some time, and this is an emergency measure." I wonder whether the doubling of the Territorial field force is, in fact, the most rapid emergency measure which we can take?
From that point of view, I would draw attention to what was said by the Secretary of State for War only the other night at Bermondsey. He was contrasting for his own purposes—and I do not propose to pursue the contrast—the inestimable advantages, as he called them, from a military standpoint, of universal service, such as equality of service and an equal chance to all, and he went on to point out that if all recruits were given a continuous period of training with the Regular Army the men could be brought to the centres where skilled staffs and equipment existed. It must be realised, he said, that under the Territorial system the staffs and equipment had to be brought to the recruits and had to be dispersed. In other words, the slowest way of building up forces for an emergency is the Territorial system and any other method, whether voluntary or not, by which you could rapidly raise men and have them trained where the facilities for training already exist and where the

equipment for training already exists, would, from the emergency point of view, be very much preferable.
We are told that we cannot raise more than a certain number of men because the equipment is lacking. Is it not a terrible reflection that no equipment seems to have been ordered, beyond the requirements of the existing Territorial Force, after the events of last Autumn? One would have thought that, even if there were difficulties in raising the men, we could at any rate have looked ahead sufficiently to provide the equipment—uniforms, boots, machine guns, artillery—but apparently even for the second 13 divisions that is only now being got ready. So far as we know, nothing is being got ready for the necessary reserves or for any expansion. We all know that if war broke out to-morrow, as it might, we should at once have to face the necessity of framing some sort of clear, comprehensive, and coherent plan on a scale commensurate with the danger. Is it really impossible to do something of that sort to-day, even if we cannot carry out all the measures? Is it impossible to envisage to-day the kind of measures which we know will be wanted if the present European situation should end in war and not, as we sincerely hope, in peace?
Let me just state to the House what are the obvious conditions that have to be taken into account. The first, of course, is the maximum number of men that we can make available after other essential needs—naval, air, munitions— have been met; the next is the minimum period of training at the end of which we can venture to put troops into the field with modern equipment; the next is how to provide the necessary training staff for those troops; the fourth is how to provide the equipment for them; and, lastly, and by no means least important, by what method actually to get hold of the men when we have decided how many we must have and on what lines we are to train them. On each of these points I want to say a word or two.
As to the number of men which we can make available, obviously in this country, with the calls upon us for the Navy, the merchant service, the Air Force, and other purposes, we are not likely to be able to mobilise as many men on land as some other nations of the


same population as ours. But how many less? Perhaps 1,000,000, perhaps even 2,000,000 less. Certainly, I cannot imagine that that list of 6,000,000 in the reserved occupations, more than half of them still of fighting age, is a really serious way of facing the problem, with no arrangements for substitution or replacement. Take it at its very lowest, make the most sweeping reductions you like, and the figures that we ought to be planning for are not another 170,000 or 250,000, but another 1,700,000 or 2,500,000. That is the kind of scale to which we ought to be working, if we are really confronting the seriousness of this problem; and if we are, then obviously we should be beginning now to take the necessary measures to build up a training staff, which is the most essential first step. Nobody suggests that we should call out men before they are wanted or before they can be trained, but once you have made your plans, you can begin to organise the necessary training staff.
The next thing we should begin to do, and to do at once, is to see to the munitions programme. Hitherto our whole munitions programme has been a hand-to-mouth programme. After a bit the Government have yielded to the pressure of the House of Commons, or possibly of allies, and said, "We will add something to our Forces." Then they say, "We must order some more munitions." How can we face so grave a problem with methods like that? The natural consequence, if we once had to face a scale of equipment based on a real plan, is that we should have to come to some decision on the question of a Ministry of Supply, on the question of necessary priorities being given, on the question of co-operation with the trade union world, and on the question of the definite limitation of profiteering. All these things out to be decided now, and it is terrible that this problem of the Ministry of Supply, and all that flows from it, has been postponed from month to month, and that even now, when we may be on the very verge of war, no decision has been taken.
I come to the question of the minimum period of training. I do not think anyone would dream of suggesting that the present Territorial training can create troops fit to take the field at the outbreak of war. The patriotism of the men who give night after night and the best of

their holiday times to the Territorial Army is admirable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said not long ago, it is almost sublime. You would not get it in any other country. All the same, we cannot get from the most patriotic people under present conditions more than spare-time service, and that will not give us the months of continuous and intensive training that are the very minimum which will make soldiers fit to take the field. It is not for me to suggest a particular figure, but, judging from the experience of the most democratic countries, countries least affected by militarism like the Swiss, the Swedes, or the Norwegians, I should say that from four to six months is the very least period of effective training that we can give in fairness to the men whom we ask to risk their lives for their country.
Then comes the question how, with that period of service, we are going to get the men? We may get a certain number, and we ought to try to get a certain number at once, on voluntary lines, by offering sufficient pay to build up as quickly as we can something corresponding to the old Special Reserve—100,000, 150,000 or 200,000 if we can. These we should form into a certain number of divisions and build up the reserves for those divisions. Nor should we hesitate at a moment like this to take the maximum advantage we can of the able men of military age who are now refugees from countries in Central Europe. Let us make use of every emergency reserve we can get. But I cannot see how we can get anything like the numbers that are wanted without taking our courage in our hands as a nation and deciding that we must in some form or other accept the principle of universal obligatory service. I do not wish to elaborate that point further. All I say is that that is the big issue which we ought to face now rather than disperse for the holidays and think that this matter can be postponed.
Taking the issues I have mentioned together, the things that are necessary to-day demand an effort on such a scale that they can only be carried out by a united nation. I believe we are to-day a united nation so far as foreign policy is concerned, at any rate, on essentials. The House showed that clearly last Monday. If we are united with regard to the end, can we afford to be disunited with


regard to the means? Is it really impossible for the Government and the Opposition, the leaders of industry and the leaders of trade unions, to get together and honestly, and from the foundations, to examine the facts of the military situation and ask themselves what are the steps which we must take if our policy is to have any chance of being carried through to success? I hope the Prime Minister, who is, after all, the natural leader of this House and of the country at this moment, will take his courage in his hands and approach others, and somehow or other find means of getting together in agreement. Whether that takes the form of closer consultation or the form of widening the basis of government it is not for me to say; but in some way or other it is time we faced the gravity of the present situation, and faced it as a united nation, united not merely on our general ideas of policy, but united on what is indispensable if that policy is to succeed, namely on the means by which that policy can be carried out.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I remember that on the occasion of that very difficult ordeal, the making of my maiden speech in this House, I had the honour of following the right hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery), and I was then astonished to discover the extent to which I agreed with him, and again to-day I would like to state that I am proud to say that I agree with him in a very great measure, because I think he is one of the most sincere men in this House, and that is not a reflection on other people. I am speaking to-day because I feel most strongly that it is time that we in this House realised that a world war is actually in progress, even though it may happen that, so far, there has been very little bloodshed. I believe that we have got to learn to think strategically, and I confess, as one who spends a good deal of time reading foreign newspapers and listening to the menacing broadcasts, the insulting broadcasts, about this country which reach us, that I think it is time that we altered our whole conception of defence. The failure of this Government to think strategically in the last few years has lost us the most important positions in the Mediterranean, in Northern Africa, in the Far East, in South-Eastern Europe, and

now, as we read in the papers only this morning, in Spain.
As I see it, the only hope of Germany to destroy this Empire is to win what they themselves call a Blitzkrieg, a lightning war. If Germany cannot win a war in a very few weeks, then our much greater resources, and probably our greater number of allies, will be the decisive factor in victory. As I see it, we have to do everything to make sure that in the first few days or weeks of war, if war were to happen, we should not be found unprepared. As far as foreign policy is concerned, there are obviously two things we ought to do, in my opinion. One is, with the very greatest speed, to make an alliance with Russia; because whatever we may think of the internal situation of Russia there can be very little doubt that the Russian Army to-day is much more effective than the Tsarist Army of 1913, and yet, as we know, even after the Americans were fully in the war, when Russia went out of it and the Germans were able to transfer their divisions from the eastern to the western front, just 19 years ago, we very nearly lost the war, because Germany was no longer fighting on two fronts. I, personally, am very grateful that the Government have concluded this Agreement with Poland, because that, to my mind, is a great deterrent, but I think we have got to see that that is expanded as quickly as possible to cover Russia.
The second thing that ought to happen is, surely, that our foreign policy should be one that wins the fullest confidence of the American people. It is certain that Herr Hitler and President Roosevelt between them have abolished the American conception of isolation. That is a remarkable change, to which we pay far too little attention. The realisation that even if Germany were to succeed in a Blitzkrieg, in a lightning war, and in frightening the British and French people so much that they would demand peace, which I do not believe would happen, the knowledge and realisation that behind the British and French people were the great people of the United States would be the greatest of all deterrents for Germany. In other words, it seems obvious that our foreign policy must make quite sure that if Germany tried to declare war she would have to fight on two fronts, and would have the prospect of having to face the great resources of the United States.
I wanted to speak to-day on the question of domestic or home defence. I confess that I am horrified that we are going away for the Easter holidays at a moment when every Member of this House is deeply disquieted by the news from abroad, and at the difference between the temper of the preparations for war in this country and in Germany. In those totalitarian States we find the whole national industry concentrated on the preparation for war, but we are still going ahead with no decision on deep shelters, the question of a Ministry of Supply or the concentration of food reserves, and we are still told that we must not interfere with business as usual—although from all I hear there is very little business with which to interfere.
The result is that when we appeal to the small nations of Europe, which are desperately anxious to maintain their independence, and of which there is not one which is not terrified of being dominated by Germany, when we say that after years of very indecisive foreign policy we now propose to build up again this idea of collective security which the Government, throughout years, have done nothing to defend but, on the contrary, have done a great deal to destroy, and when we say, "At last we have learned our lesson and we want to build a system of collective defence," hardly one of them has sufficient confidence in the power of the British Empire to come down definitely on their side. I saw a statement in a paper a day or two ago by the President of the Norwegian Parliament—andwhat country is closer to us than Norway?— that the Scandinavian countries did not want guarantees of help from the great Powers because they had seen lately to what such guarantees amounted. The arrangement with Poland seems to be a great step forward but, welcome though it is, it will not alone give us real security. I do not want to take up the time of the House talking about foreign affairs, but I suggest that there must be two developments. If we are to avoid the outbreak of a lightning war we must have our manpower prepared. Each man and woman in this country should know roughly what they are called upon to do.
I am afraid that I am very new to the Rules of this House, but I am told that in a Debate on the Adjournment we must

be very careful to say nothing to suggest the institution of new legislation, and I do not want to do that, but I know that any idea of compulsory military service is bitterly opposed by the people who have put their trust in me as a Member of Parliament. I am fully prepared to meet that committee of the people who sent me to this House; in fact, I am anxious to meet them. If, by supporting conscription, I lose their confidence, I shall be very ready to resign at once, but there are times when the only voice to which one should listen is that of the dictates of one's conscience. I believe that one of the great deterrents at the present time to the Powers that are determined to destroy the British Empire would be the institution in this country of some form of compulsory military service. If we had to accept some form of compulsory national military service in a moment of crisis if war were to break out, the Government would probably get that accepted by the country almost without conditions. I am not sure, but I think there would be, nevertheless, throughout the Labour party and the Liberal party a great feeling of discontent about it. I do not believe it is fair to arrive at a moment of great national crisis and then ask the people to accept compulsory National Service. I think it is better to face up to that issue before the crisis arrives, and I do not think it is fair to ask the people to make that great change in their whole national make-up. I believe the only States which have not got some form of compulsory national service are Luxembourg and Monaco. [An HON. MEMBER: "San Marino."] It is accepted as a normal system by a great number of thoroughly democratic States, but it marks a very great change in our make-up.
I am convinced that it is not fair to impose that upon the British public without a very drastic change in the composition of the present Government. If you have conscription of man-power, you must also have the most rigid conceivable system of conscription of wealth, because there is not a Member of the House who wants a repetition of the war profiteering that we had between 1914 and 1918, and also, I think, you would have to have a very considerable change in the composition of the Government. Too many supporters and members of


the Government have suddenly discovered the benefits and the blessings of collective security. They have been converted with a. rapidity which is only exceeded by that of Saul on the road to Damascus. During these Easter holidays, if we are given Easter holidays, I would suggest that Members of the Government should reflect very seriously whether there ought not to be a drastic change in the Government which involves not only bringing in other Members, but getting rid of certain Members in it who in the past have done a great deal to destroy the League of Nations.
After all, every one of us who was in the last War, and every one who has children who may have to fight in the next, knows that the only constructive and decent thing that came out of the war to end war was the Covenant of the League of Nations. We have seen that Covenant torn by article by article, and now we are paying the price. Every one of us wants national unity. We are faced with the gravest crisis the Empire has ever been called upon to face. Let us have a united nation. We cannot have a really united nation, whatever the votes of the House, whatever the comments of the national Press, unless we have a Government which has the absolute confidence of the great mass of the people. Therefore, may I express the hope that by the time we come back after the holidays the Government will have realised that if, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook hinted, we must adopt a different system of bringing our man power into the service of the State, we can only do it by a complete change in the outlook of the Government. It is time we got rid of some of these people who for years have done nothing to build up the collective system which we must have if the Empire is not to be destroyed.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Trevor Cox: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) was right in pointing out that there is a very difficult and grave position in foreign affairs to-day, and it was not out of place for him to draw attention to some of these important problems. As he said, the Debate last Monday showed very little of the spirit of controversy. The country as a whole is completely united on all major questions of foreign policy. As the right hon.

Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said on Monday, this is no time for party political recriminations, nor is it a time when any ideological differences should be allowed to divide us. The whole country is now united. There is complete unity in all ranks and classes. This unity of people and parties is a powerful factor on the side of peace. It will greatly help the National Government in any negotiations with foreign Powers in the future.
I thought that the German Chancellor's last speech contained a number of sinister threats, as, indeed, did the German official commentary issued last Monday, which stated that England was throwing all her resources into a policy of encirclement against the vital interests of Germany on the Continent, and that the Reich had no intention of waiting until the encirclement net had been closed and rendered untearable. I thought that that was a grave threat. Of course, as the Prime Minister has shown, no one desires the encirclement of Germany. That is not desired by any country. But some of Germany's smaller neighbours fear this policy, and they have every reason to do so. Czecho-Slovakia lost her freedom through it, and the smaller States surrounding Germany are naturally most apprehensive of German encirclement.
It is sometimes said that all this political trouble and this continued phase of crisis is the aftermath of Munich. I have always held the view that the Munich policy was right at the time. There was no practical alternative policy. Nobody has been able to put forward any constructive suggestions for an alternative policy which might have been adopted at the time. At Munich the Prime Minister gave a powerful impulse to the wheel of history towards peace and ordered freedom. I think the Prime Minister's statement to-day with regard to the Polish guarantee will give to the smaller States in Europe every cause for hope and encouragement. It has been made perfectly clear now that the Government are making a most courageous and energetic attempt to master the spectre of war. I feel that the Prime Minister, like his distinguished father, has shown that no other statesman of our time has surpassed him in the two great qualities of courage and


confidence. As was said by Mr. Asquith about the Prime Minister's father, his confidence was buoyant and unperturbed in the justice of his cause, and his courage persistent and undismayed in its steadfast pursuit.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook made reference to the important question of compulsory service. It is a very urgent question, and it is very much in the minds of the people of this country. I feel that the free and voluntary system will bring greater unity to these islands. I think that, if any compulsory system were introduced in peace time, it would seriously disturb the unity of this country, and might encourage foreign aggressors to take advantage of that disunity. It is true that compulsion has often shown impressive results, but in reality it is something of a sham in times of peace, and I feel that it is best to continue with the present policy, as it has shown such good results. Our free institutions certainly do not encourage compulsory methods. Our existing Constitution is flexible, and has shown great powers of adaptation. Nor can it be said that we have a new Constitution hastily framed by private ambition or popular enthusiasm. States with such organs are in danger of collapsing in fragments at the first shock of conflict. I feel that it would be much better to continue as at present with our voluntary system, rather than take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook. Turning to another point, I hold the view that the new diplomacy, of personal contact between heads of States, which has been utilised in the last two years, is direct and effective. Events move with greater speed to-day, and these new measures are necessary.
The old method, like chain armour and wooden battleships, has had its day, and will soon take its place among the things which have an interest for collectors and dealers in antiques. Now history shows us—and this was pointed out in a very able memorandum by Sir Eyre Crowe— that a danger threatening the independence of any nation has generally arisen out of the momentary predominance of a neighbouring State at once militarily powerful, economically efficient, and ambitious to extend its frontiers. The only check on the abuse of political predominance derived from such a

position has already consisted in the opposition of an equally formidable rival, or a combination of several countries forming leagues of defence. We seem to be reaching the necessity for such a combination, for the crooked cross caste its ever-lengthening shadow across Europe. At a time like this, I feel that measures of this kind are most necessary. That this political predominance is likely to be abused is quite clear from recent events. The German Chancellor has said that there is no German who, even in his most secret thoughts, has the intention of causing the British Empire any difficulty. But that is not a matter on which we can afford to run any risks. Would it be right or prudent for this country to make any sacrifices, or see any other friendly nations sacrificed, in order to help Germany to build up an universal preponderance, in the hope that Germany will promote the welfare and happiness of all other peoples without injuring anyone at all?
It may be that the German Chancellor is anxious to usher in some new, happy, golden age of innocence and freedom. But we have at present no evidence pointing in that direction, nor is it a matter in which this country can afford to take any risks, because, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater(Mr. Bartlett) said, in a most interesting speech, nothing less than the freedom of these islands is at stake. A study of pre-war Anglo-German relations shows that during that interesting diplomatic period there were many acts of direct and unmistakable hostility to England on the part of the German Government. The policy carried out by the present Government in Germany is very similar to that carried out in pre-war times by the German Foreign Office. There was, during this period, also displayed a noticeable disregard of the elementary rules for straightforward and honourable dealing, which was naturally resented by a succession of British Foreign Secretaries. There was, for example, the deception practised by Bismarck on Lord Ampthill, with regard to the first German annexation of South West Africa.
There is a long list of historical examples. There was the sudden seizure of the Cameroons by a German doctor armed with official British letters of introduction to the local people. There was


the deception practised on the Reichstag by the publication of certain pretended communications to Lord Granville which were in reality never made. There were the German Chancellor's threatening speeches in Parliament; the abortive Germain raid on St. Lucia Bay and the hoisting of the German flag over vast parts of New Guinea, while negotiations were actually continuing with Britain; and there was the German pretensions to oust British settlers from Fiji and Samoa.
In all cases the British Government showed remarkable moderation, and in the same way the forbearance and restraint showed by the Prime Minister in the face of provocation has to-day given him the moral leadership of the world; and now under very different conditions we find complete unity in this country. In all these cases I have mentioned the British Government tried out the policy of friendly settlement of any outstanding differences with Germany. In the course of time, after more and more demands had been made, it was not to be wondered at that the British Government began to despair of ever reaching any satisfactory relationship with Germany by a policy of concession and compromise. In some ways the position is very similar to-day.
There was the odious Press campaign, for example, against the character of the British Army in Palestine last year, which

was very similar to that which was engineered by Germany at the end of the South African War. The character of German foreign policy seems to have altered very little. At the beginning of this century Germany's restless, dynamic, and disconcerting activity with regard to other States caused widespread alarm and concern. The result was that there was provoked a hostile combination of other nations, in arms, as they felt their vital interests endangered. To-day the smaller States in Europe no doubt know what pan-Germanism means. It can only be built up on the foundation of the wreckage of European freedom and national independence. It is to be hoped that the time has now come for the peace-loving nations to stand together and form an alliance against further aggression. The spirit of restraint and accommodation which has been shown by the whole State in recent times has given this country the leadership of the nations. Therefore, I would say, in conclusion, that, armed with new weapons and ancient loyalty to peace, let us show our united resolve to preserve our freedom.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One minute before Five of the Clock, until Tuesday, 18th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day